EEG Dynamics of Movement Preparation and Error Processing Distinguish Motor Adaptation From De Novo Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has distinguished behavioral mechanisms between motor adaptation and de novo learning. However, electroencephalography (EEG) markers dissociating them remain unclear. Here, participants (N = 32, 13 female) performed center-out reaching under a 30° fixed rotation (adaptation), mirror reversal (de novo learning), or random rotation (errors without learning), while we recorded EEG during movement preparation and post-movement feedback. We explored how perturbation type, training phase, and error magnitude shaped neural dynamics in both temporal and frequency domains. During preparation, the readiness potential (RP) showed opposite training-related modulation in the fixed and random rotations, suggesting increased reliance on updated internal models for adaptation. Mirror reversal training showed no RP change, likely reflecting reliance on effortful, explicit learning. Interestingly, we found that Lateralized Readiness Potentials (LRPs) reflected planned movement direction rather than effector-specific preparation. In the frequency domain, beta attenuation for large errors and alpha synchronization for small errors were more pronounced in the fixed rotation than in the mirror reversal, suggesting greater error-sensitivity during adaptation. During post-movement feedback, P3 amplitude decreased from early to late learning in the fixed and random rotations but remained stable in the mirror reversal, highlighting differences in cognitive demands across perturbations. A sustained late positivity emerged following small errors across perturbations, potentially indexing implicit learning. Random rotations also elicited distinct frontal and central beta modulation, likely reflecting disengagement due to task unpredictability. Together, we show that preparatory and feedback-related EEG signatures differ across perturbation types, revealing distinct neural mechanisms underlying motor adaptation and de novo learning. Significance statement Understanding how the brain supports skill acquisition and adaptation is critical for advancing theories and applications of motor learning. Although behavioral differences between motor adaptation and de novo learning are well established, the neural processes that distinguish them remain unclear. By comparing EEG activity during movement preparation and feedback-error processing across multiple perturbation types, we uncover distinct temporal and frequency domain signatures that uniquely characterize each learning process. Our findings show that adaptation engages neural dynamics consistent with updating internal models and error-processing, whereas de novo learning relies on explicit, cognitively demanding strategies that likely unfold over extended practice. These results provide a clear neural framework for distinguishing motor learning mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".