A Context-Free Model of Savings in Motor Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Learning to adapt voluntary movements to an external perturbation, whether mechanical or visual, is faster during a second encounter than during the first. The mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, known as savings, remain unclear. Recent studies propose that the high dimensionality of neural control enables the retention of learning traces that may facilitate savings. To test this idea we used MotorNet, a framework for training recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to control biomechanical models of the human upper limb. RNNs were trained to perform reaching movements with a velocity-dependent force field (FF) and without (NF) in the sequence NF1 (baseline), FF1 (adaptation), NF2 (washout), and FF2 (re-adaptation). RNNs showed behavioural signatures of savings in the absence of any explicit contextual input signalling the presence or absence of the FF. Savings was more robust in RNNs with larger numbers of units. We identified a component of RNN activity associated with savings—a shift in preparatory activity that persisted even after washout. Displacing this preparatory activity in the direction of the shift enhanced savings, whereas perturbations in the opposite direction reduced or eliminated savings. These findings suggest a potential neural basis for motor memory retention underlying savings that is reliant on the high dimensionality of neural circuits for control, and is independent of cognitive or strategic learning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".