The explicit/implicit distinction in studies of visuomotor learning: Conceptual and methodological pitfalls

Hadjiosif, Alkis M.; Krakauer, John W.

doi:10.1111/ejn.14984

Cited by 34 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However there has been a great deal of interest in explicit adaptation since it was clearly shown to play a large, persistent, role in sensorimotor adaptation, and that it bears a striking similarity to theorized fast and slow adaptation processes (McDougle et al 2015). Research on methods for the measurement and control of explicit and implicit learning is progressing rapidly (Hadjiosif and Krakauer 2020; Maresch et al 2020b), offering many different options that cannot all be detailed here. Care should be taken in navigating this explicit/implicit dichotomy.…”

Section: Adaptation Consists Of Distinct Processes Driven By Different Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The measured magnitude of these processes may depend in part on the method used to measure them, and we know the proportion of explicit learning out of the total adaptation differs as a function of the perturbation and the experimental context (Bond and Taylor 2015; Schween et al 2020). Importantly, throughout this review when we discuss explicit strategies, we are referencing strategies that are consciously and volitionally employed by the participant at the time of their use, not only upon reflection at a later point in time (Hadjiosif and Krakauer 2020).…”

Section: Adaptation Consists Of Distinct Processes Driven By Different Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this context we are referring to the explicit decision to re-aim, or change the spatial goal of a reach, so that the participant intentionally plans to move their hand to a location that is distinct from the location of the target. Disambiguation between explicit and implicit adaptation requires specific experimental procedures (Hadjiosif and Krakauer 2020; Maresch et al 2020a), as the two types of learning result in the same behavior: a single reach that has been adapted to move 15° off midline is kinematically identical to an un-adapted reach that is aimed 15° off midline. Although people tend to fixate the location where they are aiming, this is not necessary (de Brouwer et al 2018; Rand and Rentsch 2015), meaning that there is not necessarily an external behavioral marker of implicitly or explicitly adapted movements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today measuring or experimentally controlling the use of strategies during adaptation tasks is becoming a standard in the field (Butcher et al 2017; Haith et al 2015; Hegele and Heuer 2010; Heuer et al 2011; Heuer and Hegele 2011, 2014; Leow et al 2017, 2018, 2020; Mazzoni and Krakauer 2006; McDougle et al 2015, 2017; Miyamoto et al 2020; Morehead et al 2015, 2017; Rand and Heuer 2020; Ruttle et al 2020; Schween and Hegele 2017, 2017; Taylor et al 2014; Tsay et al 2020b; Vandevoorde and Orban de Xivry 2019, 2020a). It is also increasingly recognized that there is a graded boundary between implicit and explicit behavior, which can complicate the differentiation these processes (Hadjiosif and Krakauer 2020; Maresch et al 2020a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Synthesis of the Many Errors and Learning Processes of Visuomotor Adaptation

Morehead

Xivry

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visuomotor adaptation has one of the oldest experimental histories in psychology and neuroscience, yet its precise nature has always been a topic of debate. Here we offer a survey and synthesis of recent work on visuomotor adaptation that we hope will prove illuminating for this ongoing dialogue. We discuss three types of error signals that drive learning in adaptation tasks: task performance error, sensory prediction-error, and a binary target hitting error. Each of these errors has been shown to drive distinct learning processes. Namely, both target hitting errors and putative sensory prediction-errors drive an implicit change in visuomotor maps, while task performance error drives learning of explicit strategy use and non-motor decision-making. Each of these learning processes contributes to the overall learning that takes place in visuomotor adaptation tasks, and although the learning processes and error signals are independent, they interact in a complex manner. We outline many task contexts where the operation of these processes is counter-intuitive and offer general guidelines for their control, measurement and interpretation. We believe this new framework unifies several disparate threads of research in sensorimotor adaptation that often seem in conflict. We conclude by explaining how this more nuanced understanding of errors and learning processes could lend itself to the analysis of other types of sensorimotor adaptation, of motor skill learning, of the neural processing underlying sensorimotor adaptation in humans, of animal models and of brain computer interfaces.

show abstract

Section: Adaptation Consists Of Distinct Processes Driven By Different Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adaptation Consists Of Distinct Processes Driven By Different Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Synthesis of the Many Errors and Learning Processes of Visuomotor Adaptation

Morehead

Xivry

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the debate regarding the fundamental mechanisms involved in sensorimotor adaptation is by no means settled as it has been suggested very recently that implicit adaptation may be driven by direct control policy learning based on prior task errors rather than by the updating of an internal forward model (Hadjiosif et al, 2020). Another recent development stems from the suggestion that the common distinction between explicit and implicit sensorimotor learning itself may be overly simplistic and driven by the use of specific experimental methods whereas the actually relevant processes may not easily map onto those broad categories (Hadjiosif & Krakauer, 2020; Maresch et al, 2020). There is no doubt that a continued strong research focus on sensorimotor learning will be necessary to achieve a deeper understanding of how limitations in the various underlying processes may contribute to the onset of stuttering during childhood speech development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

Kim

Max

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural mechanisms underlying stuttering remain poorly understood. A large body of work has focused on sensorimotor integration difficulties in individuals who stutter, including recently the capacity for sensorimotor learning. Typically, sensorimotor learning is assessed with adaptation paradigms in which one or more sensory feedback modalities are experimentally perturbed in real-time. Our own previous work on speech with perturbed auditory feedback revealed substantial auditory-motor learning limitations in both children and adults who stutter (AWS). It remains unknown, however, which sub-processes of sensorimotor learning are impaired. Indeed, new insights from research on upper-limb motor control indicate that sensorimotor learning involves at least two distinct components: (a) an explicit component that includes intentional strategy use and presumably is driven by target error, and (b) an implicit component that updates an internal model without awareness of the learner and presumably is driven by sensory prediction error. Here, we attempted to dissociate these components for speech auditory-motor learning in AWS vs. adults who do not stutter (AWNS). Our formant-shift auditory-motor adaptation results replicated previous findings that such sensorimotor learning is limited in AWS. Novel findings are that neither control nor stuttering participants reported any awareness of changing their productions in response to the auditory perturbation, and that neither group showed systematic drift in auditory target judgments made throughout the adaptation task. These results indicate that speech auditory-motor adaptation relies exclusively on implicit learning processes. Thus, limited adaptation in AWS reflects poor implicit sensorimotor learning.

show abstract

Assessing and defining explicit processes in visuomotor adaptation

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this Master's of Science thesis. My contributions include, a review of literature in the area of interest, participant recruitment, participant testing, data collection, data compilation, statistical analyses, and the write-up of this thesis document. All of these duties were performed under the guidance and mentorship of my research supervisor, Dr. Erin K. Cressman.The experiment in this thesis was performed in collaboration with my research supervisor, Dr. Erin K. Cressman, who provided editorial corrections and feedback, and is the co-author of the article presented in this thesis.

show abstract

The explicit/implicit distinction in studies of visuomotor learning: Conceptual and methodological pitfalls

Cited by 34 publications

References 25 publications

A Synthesis of the Many Errors and Learning Processes of Visuomotor Adaptation

A Synthesis of the Many Errors and Learning Processes of Visuomotor Adaptation

Speech auditory-motor adaptation lacks an explicit component: reduced adaptation in adults who stutter reflects limitations in implicit sensorimotor learning

Assessing and defining explicit processes in visuomotor adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About