A neural implementation model of feedback-based motor learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals use feedback to rapidly correct ongoing movements in the presence of a perturbation. Repeated exposure to a predictable perturbation leads to behavioural adaptation that compensates for its effects. Here, we tested the hypothesis that all the processes necessary for motor adaptation may emerge as properties of a controller that adaptively updates its policy. We trained a recurrent neural network to control its own output through an error-based feedback signal, which allowed it to rapidly counteract external perturbations. Implementing a biologically plausible plasticity rule based on this same feedback signal enabled the network to learn to compensate for persistent perturbations through a trial-by-trial process. The network activity changes during learning matched those from populations of neurons from monkey primary motor cortex - known to mediate both movement correction and motor adaptation - during the same task. Furthermore, our model natively reproduced several key aspects of behavioural studies in humans and monkeys. Thus, key features of trial-by-trial motor adaptation can arise from the internal properties of a recurrent neural circuit that adaptively controls its output based on ongoing feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".