It has become increasingly clear that learning in visuomotor rotation tasks, which induce an angular mismatch between movements of the hand and visual feedback, largely results from the combined effort of two distinct processes: implicit motor adaptation and explicit re-aiming. However, it remains unclear how these two processes work together to produce trial-by-trial learning. Previous work has found that implicit motor adaptation operates automatically, regardless of task relevancy, and saturates for large errors. In contrast, little is known about the automaticity of explicit re-aiming and its sensitivity to error magnitude. Here we sought to characterize the automaticity and sensitivity function of these two processes to determine how they work together to facilitate performance in a visuomotor rotation task. We found that implicit adaptation scales relative to the visual error, but only for small perturbations - replicating prior work. In contrast, explicit re-aiming scales linearly for all tested perturbation sizes. Furthermore, the consistency of the perturbation appears to diminish both implicit adaptation and explicit re-aiming, but to different degrees. Whereas implicit adaptation always displayed a response to the error, explicit re-aiming was only engaged when errors displayed a minimal degree of consistency. This comports with the idea that implicit adaptation is obligatory and less flexible, while explicit re-aiming is volitional and flexible.

32It has become increasingly clear that learning in visuomotor rotation tasks, which induce an 33 angular mismatch between movements of the hand and visual feedback, largely results from the 34 combined effort of two distinct processes: implicit motor adaptation and explicit re-aiming. 35However, it remains unclear how these two processes work together to produce trial-by-trial 36 learning. Previous work has found that implicit motor adaptation operates automatically, 37 regardless of task relevancy, and saturates for large errors. In contrast, little is known about the 38 automaticity of explicit re-aiming and its sensitivity to error magnitude. Here we sought to 39 characterize the automaticity and sensitivity function of these two processes to determine how 40 they work together to facilitate performance in a visuomotor rotation task. We found that implicit 41 adaptation scales relative to the visual error, but only for small perturbations -replicating prior 42 work. In contrast, explicit re-aiming scales linearly for all tested perturbation sizes. Furthermore, 43 the consistency of the perturbation appears to diminish both implicit adaptation and explicit re-44 aiming, but to different degrees. Whereas implicit adaptation always displayed a response to the 45 error, explicit re-aiming was only engaged when errors displayed a minimal degree of 46 consistency. This comports with the idea that implicit adaptation is obligatory and less flexible, 47

Previous work has demonstrated that cued recall of a term from a fact yields learning that does not transfer, relative to a restudy control, to recall of another term from the same fact. Here we report six experiments in which a series of manipulations during the initial study and training phases of learning, hypothesized to increase transfer for process-based biology concepts, were investigated. In Experiments 1 and 2, fillin-the-blank questions combined with immediate or delayed and repeated correct answer feedback improved learning but not transfer. In Experiments 3 and 4, practice questions that involved recalling process steps, understanding ordinal relationships, or making inferences did not improve transfer. Positive transfer was produced, however, in Experiments 5 and 6 via retrieval-verification-scoring, a new method in which difficult fill-in-the-blank questions were combined with extensive feedback processing.We discuss implications for transfer in both theoretical and applied contexts.

Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/ preparing-manuscript#journalclub.

Previous work has demonstrated that cued recall of a term from a fact yields learning that does not transfer, relative to a restudy control, to recall of another term from the same fact. Here we report six experiments in which a series of manipulations during the initial study and training phases of learning, hypothesized to increase transfer for process-based biology concepts, were investigated. In Experiments 1-2, fill-in-the-blank questions combined with immediate or delayed and repeated correct answer feedback improved learning but not transfer. In Experiments 3-4, practice questions that involved recalling process steps, understanding ordinal relationships, or making inferences, did not improve transfer. Positive transfer was produced, however, in Experiments 5-6 via retrieval-verification-scoring, a new method in which difficult fill-in-the-blank questions were combined with extensive feedback processing. We discuss implications for transfer in both theoretical and applied contexts.