Distinct learning, retention, and generalization patterns in de novo learning versus motor adaptation.

People correct for movement errors when acquiring new motor skills (de novo learning) or adapting well-known movements (motor adaptation). While de novo learning establishes new control policies, adaptation modifies existing ones, and previous work have distinguished behavioral and underlying brain mechanisms for each motor learning type. However, it is still unclear whether learning in each type interferes with the other. In study 1, we use a within-subjects design where participants train with both 30° visuomotor rotation and mirror reversal perturbations, to compare adaptation and de novo learning respectively. We find no perturbation order effects, and find no evidence for differences in learning rates and asymptotes for both perturbations. Explicit instructions also provide an advantage during early learning in both perturbations. However, mirror reversal learning shows larger inter-participant variability and slower movement initiation. Furthermore, we only observe reach aftereffects following rotation training. In study 2, we incorporate the mirror reversal in a browser-based task, to investigate under-studied de novo learning mechanisms like retention and generalization. Learning persists across three or more days, substantially transfers to the untrained hand, and to targets on both sides of the mirror axis. Our results extend insights for distinguishing motor skill acquisition from adapting well-known movements.

External error attribution dampens efferent-based predictions but not proprioceptive changes in hand localization.

In learning and adapting movements in changing conditions, people attribute the errors they experience to a combined weighting of internal or external sources. As such, error attribution that places more weight on external sources should lead to decreased updates in our internal models for movement of the limb or estimating the position of the effector, i.e. there should be reduced implicit learning. However, measures of implicit learning are the same whether or not we induce explicit adaptation with instructions about the nature of the perturbation. Here we evoke clearly external errors by either demonstrating the rotation on every trial, or showing the hand itself throughout training. Implicit reach aftereffects persist, but are reduced in both groups. Only for the group viewing the hand, changes in hand position estimates suggest that predicted sensory consequences are not updated, but only rely on recalibrated proprioception. Our results show that estimating the position of the hand incorporates source attribution during motor learning, but recalibrated proprioception is an implicit process unaffected by external error attribution.