The influence of task outcome on implicit motor learning

Kim, Hyosub; Parvin, Darius E.; Ivry, Richard B

doi:10.1101/363606

Cited by 40 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are consistent with the range of implicit adaptation previously found in numerous studies, including those using standard visuomotor rotation tasks without re-aiming reports (Taylor and Ivry, 2014), perturbations introduced in a pseudorandom walk (Stark-Inbar, 2017), and taskirrelevant-visual-error clamp Kim et al 2018;Kim et al 2019). Despite these individual differences, participants appeared to be remarkably consistent in maintaining their personal relative contribution of explicit and implicit learning within and across days.…”

Section: Analysis Of Within-and Between-subject Variancesupporting

confidence: 88%

“…This result may have been expected given recent evidence that implicit adaptation falls well short of full learning (Morehead and Smith, 2017;Morehead, Taylor, Parvin, and Ivry, 2017;Kim et al, 2018;Kim, Parvin, and Ivry, 2019). We hypothesized that this failure of implicit adaptation was due to a lack of sufficient opportunity for consolidation, an idea that failed to be supported by our five-day experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implicit visuomotor adaptation remains limited after several days of training

Wilterson

Taylor

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning in sensorimotor adaptation tasks has been historically viewed as solely an implicit learning phenomenon. However, recent findings suggest that implicit adaptation is heavily constrained, calling into question its utility in motor learning, and the theoretical framework of sensorimotor adaptation paradigms. These inferences have been based mainly on results from single bouts of training, thus, it is possible that implicit adaptation processes supersede explicit compensation strategies, such as explicitly re-aiming their intended movement direction, over repeated practice sessions. We tested this by dissociating the contributions of explicit re-aiming strategies and implicit adaptation over five consecutive days of training. Implicit adaptation plateaued at a value far short of complete learning. We sought to determine if these constraints on implicit adaptation extend to another sensorimotor task, mirror reversal. Implicit adaptation was inappropriate for mirror reversal and became suppressed during training. These findings are consistent with a handful of recent studies suggesting that implicit adaptation processes, as studied in sensorimotor adaptation paradigms, cannot fully support long-term motor skill. New and NoteworthyIn this set of studies, we find that implicit adaptation cannot fully account for learning in adaptation tasks, such as the visuomotor rotation and mirror reversal tasks, even following several days of training. In fact, implicit adaptation can be counterproductive to learning. These findings question the utility of implicit adaptation processes to motor learning more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Within-and Between-subject Variancesupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Implicit visuomotor adaptation remains limited after several days of training

Wilterson

Taylor

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first group adapted fully to the rotation and had eye movements consistent with performance in exclusion trials (Match-High group); the second group also adapted fully but had less explicit eye than would be expected from exclusion trials (No-Match group); the third group only adapted partially and had eye movements consistent with lack of explicit adaptation in the exclusion trials (Match-Low group). The learning curves of this last group were similar to those reported in paradigms where subjects had only implicit adaptation (Morehead et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2018Kim et al, , 2019. Smith et al (2006) proposed a two-state model of motor adaptation that is still the most widely used model in the field.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Eye Movements during Visuomotor Adaptation Represent Only Part of the Explicit Learning

Bromberg

Donchin

Haar

2019

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visuomotor rotations are learned through a combination of explicit strategy and implicit recalibration. However, measuring the relative contribution of each remains a challenge and the possibility of multiple explicit and implicit components complicates the issue. Recent interest has focused on the possibility that eye movements reflects explicit strategy. Here we compared eye movements during adaptation to two accepted measures of explicit learning: verbal report and the exclusion test. We found that while reporting, all subjects showed a match among all three measures. However, when subjects did not report their intention, the eye movements of some subjects suggested less explicit adaptation than what was measured in an exclusion test. Interestingly, subjects whose eye movements did match their exclusion could be clustered into the following two subgroups: fully implicit learners showing no evidence of explicit adaptation and explicit learners with little implicit adaptation. Subjects showing a mix of both explicit and implicit adaptation were also those where eye movements showed less explicit adaptation than did exclusion. Thus, our results support the idea of multiple components of explicit learning as only part of the explicit learning is reflected in the eye movements. Individual subjects may use explicit components that are reflected in the eyes or those that are not or some mixture of the two. Analysis of reaction times suggests that the explicit components reflected in the eye movements involve longer reaction times. This component, according to recent literature, may be related to mental rotation. Significance StatementVisuomotor adaptation involves both explicit and implicit components: aware reaiming and unaware error correction. Recent studies suggest that eye movements could be used to capture the explicit component, a method that would have significant advantages over other approaches. We show that eye movements capture only one component of explicit adaptation. This component scales with reaction time while the component unrelated to eye movements does not. Our finding has obvious practical implications for the use of eye movements as a proxy for explicit learning. However, our results also corroborate recent findings suggesting the existence of multiple explicit components, and, specifically, their decomposition into components correlated with reaction time and components that are not.

show abstract

“…McDougle et al propose that explicit re-aiming may have different components that are computed and cached (McDougle and Taylor 2019). Others propose that implicit adaptation has labile and stable components (Miyamoto, Wang et al 2014, Kim, Parvin et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods matter: your measures of explicit and implicit processes in visuomotor adaptation affect your results

Maresch

Werner

Donchin

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visuomotor rotations are frequently used to study cognitive processes underlying motor adaptation.Explicit aiming strategies and implicit recalibration are two of these processes. A large body of literature indicates that these two processes are dissociable and perhaps even independent components. Various direct and indirect methods have been used to dissociate the two processes.Discrepancies have been found between these different methods. They may arise for different reasons, but one reason may be that the different measures reflect different components of explicit and implicit knowledge. They may also be because of effects of the measurements themselves on the amount of explicit and implicit learning. The goal of this study was to directly compare verbal reporting, a direct measure of explicit knowledge, with indirect measures. We thus compared three different measures in two different conditions: during consistent reporting and during intermittent reporting. Our results show that our two conditions lead to a dissociation between the measures. In the consistent reporting group, all measures showed similar results. However, in the intermittent reporting condition, verbal reporting showed less explicit and more implicit knowledge than our two indirect methods. Verbal reporting seems to be insensitive to the changes in explicit knowledge caused by reporting. These findings suggest that verbal reporting reflects different components of explicit knowledge than those reflected in our indirect measures. A more sophisticated approach, including multiple components of explicit knowledge, may be necessary in order to fully understand motor adaptation. New and noteworthyExplicit and implicit processes during adaptation to visuomotor rotations can be captured using different types of measures. Here, we show that different methods may capture different processes and moreover, measurement may confound estimates of explicit and implicit knowledge. We suggest that at least two explicit components -one that is verbalizable and the other controllable -exist which can be captured by using the report and the AI, respectively.Reporting affects explicit knowledge in visuomotor rotations

show abstract

The influence of task outcome on implicit motor learning

Cited by 40 publications

References 21 publications

Implicit visuomotor adaptation remains limited after several days of training

Implicit visuomotor adaptation remains limited after several days of training

Eye Movements during Visuomotor Adaptation Represent Only Part of the Explicit Learning

Methods matter: your measures of explicit and implicit processes in visuomotor adaptation affect your results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About