Sensory prediction error drives subconscious motor learning outside of the laboratory.

Sensorimotor adaptation is supported by at least two parallel learning systems: an intentionally controlled explicit strategy and an involuntary implicit learning system. Past work focused on constrained reaches or finger movements in laboratory environments has shown subconscious learning systems to be driven in part by sensory prediction error (SPE), i.e., the mismatch between the realized and expected outcome of an action. We designed a ball rolling task to explore whether SPEs can drive implicit motor adaptation during complex whole body movements that impart physical motion on external objects. After applying a visual shift, participants rapidly adapted their rolling angles to reduce the error between the ball and the target. We removed all visual feedback and told participants to aim their throw directly toward the primary target, revealing an unintentional 5.06° implicit adjustment to reach angles that decayed over time. To determine whether this implicit adaptation was driven by SPE, we gave participants a second aiming target that would "solve" the visual shift, as in the study by Mazzoni and Krakauer (Mazzoni P, Krakauer JW. J Neurosci 26: 3642-3645, 2006). Remarkably, after rapidly reducing ball-rolling error to zero (due to enhancements in strategic aiming), the additional aiming target caused rolling angles to deviate beyond the primary target by 3.15°. This involuntary overcompensation, which worsened task performance, is a hallmark of SPE-driven implicit learning. These results show that SPE-driven implicit processes, previously observed within simplified finger or planar reaching movements, actively contribute to motor adaptation in more complex naturalistic skill-based tasks.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Implicit and explicit learning systems have been detected using simple, constrained movements inside the laboratory. How these systems impact movements during complex whole body, skill-based tasks has not been established. Here, we demonstrate that sensory prediction errors significantly impact how a person updates their movements, replicating findings from the laboratory in an unconstrained ball-rolling task. This real-world validation is an important step toward explaining how subconscious learning helps humans execute common motor skills in dynamic environments.

Adaptive control of movement deceleration during saccades.

As you read this text, your eyes make saccades that guide your fovea from one word to the next. Accuracy of these movements require the brain to monitor and learn from visual errors. A current model suggests that learning is supported by two different adaptive processes, one fast (high error sensitivity, low retention), and the other slow (low error sensitivity, high retention). Here, we searched for signatures of these hypothesized processes and found that following experience of a visual error, there was an adaptive change in the motor commands of the subsequent saccade. Surprisingly, this adaptation was not uniformly expressed throughout the movement. Rather, after experience of a single error, the adaptive response in the subsequent trial was limited to the deceleration period. After repeated exposure to the same error, the acceleration period commands also adapted, and exhibited resistance to forgetting during set-breaks. In contrast, the deceleration period commands adapted more rapidly, but suffered from poor retention during these same breaks. State-space models suggested that acceleration and deceleration periods were supported by a shared adaptive state which re-aimed the saccade, as well as two separate processes which resembled a two-state model: one that learned slowly and contributed primarily via acceleration period commands, and another that learned rapidly but contributed primarily via deceleration period commands.

Estimating properties of the fast and slow adaptive processes during sensorimotor adaptation.

Experience of a prediction error recruits multiple motor learning processes, some that learn strongly from error but have weak retention and some that learn weakly from error but exhibit strong retention. These processes are not generally observable but are inferred from their collective influence on behavior. Is there a robust way to uncover the hidden processes? A standard approach is to consider a state space model where the hidden states change following experience of error and then fit the model to the measured data by minimizing the squared error between measurement and model prediction. We found that this least-squares algorithm (LMSE) often yielded unrealistic predictions about the hidden states, possibly because of its neglect of the stochastic nature of error-based learning. We found that behavioral data during adaptation was better explained by a system in which both error-based learning and movement production were stochastic processes. To uncover the hidden states of learning, we developed a generalized expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. In simulation, we found that although LMSE tracked the measured data marginally better than EM, EM was far more accurate in unmasking the time courses and properties of the hidden states of learning. In a power analysis designed to measure the effect of an intervention on sensorimotor learning, EM significantly reduced the number of subjects that were required for effective hypothesis testing. In summary, we developed a new approach for analysis of data in sensorimotor experiments. The new algorithm improved the ability to uncover the multiple processes that contribute to learning from error. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor learning is supported by multiple adaptive processes, each with distinct error sensitivity and forgetting rates. We developed a generalized expectation maximization algorithm that uncovers these hidden processes in the context of modern sensorimotor learning experiments that include error-clamp trials and set breaks. The resulting toolbox may improve the ability to identify the properties of these hidden processes and reduce the number of subjects needed to test the effectiveness of interventions on sensorimotor learning.

The Neural Feedback Response to Error As a Teaching Signal for the Motor Learning System.

UNLABELLED: When we experience an error during a movement, we update our motor commands to partially correct for this error on the next trial. How does experience of error produce the improvement in the subsequent motor commands? During the course of an erroneous reaching movement, proprioceptive and visual sensory pathways not only sense the error, but also engage feedback mechanisms, resulting in corrective motor responses that continue until the hand arrives at its goal. One possibility is that this feedback response is co-opted by the learning system and used as a template to improve performance on the next attempt. Here we used electromyography (EMG) to compare neural correlates of learning and feedback to test the hypothesis that the feedback response to error acts as a template for learning. We designed a task in which mixtures of error-clamp and force-field perturbation trials were used to deconstruct EMG time courses into error-feedback and learning components. We observed that the error-feedback response was composed of excitation of some muscles, and inhibition of others, producing a complex activation/deactivation pattern during the reach. Despite this complexity, across muscles the learning response was consistently a scaled version of the error-feedback response, but shifted 125 ms earlier in time. Across people, individuals who produced a greater feedback response to error, also learned more from error. This suggests that the feedback response to error serves as a teaching signal for the brain. Individuals who learn faster have a better teacher in their feedback control system. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Our sensory organs transduce errors in behavior. To improve performance, we must generate better motor commands. How does the nervous system transform an error in sensory coordinates into better motor commands in muscle coordinates? Here we show that when an error occurs during a movement, the reflexes transform the sensory representation of error into motor commands. To learn from error, the nervous system scales this feedback response and then shifts it earlier in time, adding it to the previously generated motor commands. This addition serves as an update to the motor commands, constituting the learning signal. Therefore, by providing a coordinate transformation, the feedback system generates a template for learning from error.

A software tool for at-home measurement of sensorimotor adaptation.

Sensorimotor adaptation is traditionally studied in well-controlled laboratory settings with specialized equipment. However, recent public health concerns such as the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a desire to recruit a more diverse study population, have led the motor control community to consider at-home study designs. At-home motor control experiments are still rare because of the requirement to write software that can be easily used by anyone on any platform. To this end, we developed software that runs locally on a personal computer. The software provides audiovisual instructions and measures the ability of the subject to control the cursor in the context of visuomotor perturbations. We tested the software on a group of at-home participants and asked whether the adaptation principles inferred from in-lab measurements were reproducible in the at-home setting. For example, we manipulated the perturbations to test whether there were changes in adaptation rates (savings and interference), whether adaptation was associated with multiple timescales of memory (spontaneous recovery), and whether we could selectively suppress subconscious learning (delayed feedback, perturbation variability) or explicit strategies (limited reaction time). We found remarkable similarity between in-lab and at-home behaviors across these experimental conditions. Thus, we developed a software tool that can be used by research teams with little or no programming experience to study mechanisms of adaptation in an at-home setting.

Competition between parallel sensorimotor learning systems.

Sensorimotor learning is supported by at least two parallel systems: a strategic process that benefits from explicit knowledge and an implicit process that adapts subconsciously. How do these systems interact? Does one system's contributions suppress the other, or do they operate independently? Here, we illustrate that during reaching, implicit and explicit systems both learn from visual target errors. This shared error leads to competition such that an increase in the explicit system's response siphons away resources that are needed for implicit adaptation, thus reducing its learning. As a result, steady-state implicit learning can vary across experimental conditions, due to changes in strategy. Furthermore, strategies can mask changes in implicit learning properties, such as its error sensitivity. These ideas, however, become more complex in conditions where subjects adapt using multiple visual landmarks, a situation which introduces learning from sensory prediction errors in addition to target errors. These two types of implicit errors can oppose each other, leading to another type of competition. Thus, during sensorimotor adaptation, implicit and explicit learning systems compete for a common resource: error.

An implicit memory of errors limits human sensorimotor adaptation.

During extended motor adaptation, learning appears to saturate despite persistence of residual errors. This adaptation limit is not fixed but varies with perturbation variance; when variance is high, residual errors become larger. These changes in total adaptation could relate to either implicit or explicit learning systems. Here, we found that when adaptation relied solely on the explicit system, residual errors disappeared and learning was unaltered by perturbation variability. In contrast, when learning depended entirely, or in part, on implicit learning, residual errors reappeared. Total implicit adaptation decreased in the high-variance environment due to changes in error sensitivity, not in forgetting. These observations suggest a model in which the implicit system becomes more sensitive to errors when they occur in a consistent direction. Thus, residual errors in motor adaptation are at least in part caused by an implicit learning system that modulates its error sensitivity in response to the consistency of past errors.

Postural control of arm and fingers through integration of movement commands.

Every movement ends in a period of stillness. Current models assume that commands that hold the limb at a target location do not depend on the commands that moved the limb to that location. Here, we report a surprising relationship between movement and posture in primates: on a within-trial basis, the commands that hold the arm and finger at a target location depend on the mathematical integration of the commands that moved the limb to that location. Following damage to the corticospinal tract, both the move and hold period commands become more variable. However, the hold period commands retain their dependence on the integral of the move period commands. Thus, our data suggest that the postural controller possesses a feedforward module that uses move commands to calculate a component of hold commands. This computation may arise within an unknown subcortical system that integrates cortical commands to stabilize limb posture.

Moving an arm requires the brain to send electrical signals to the arm's muscles, causing them to contract. Neuroscientists call these types of brain signals "move signals". The brain also sends so-called hold signals, which hold the arm still in a desired position. Part of the brain known as the primary motor cortex helps to calculate the move signals for the arm, but it was unclear how the brain produces the corresponding hold signals. Fortunately, the fact that the brain moves other things besides arms may help answer this question. Previous research has shown, for example, that a brain area called the "neural integrator" calculates the hold signals needed to hold the eye in a specific position. The neural integrator does this by using basic principles of physics, and details of the speed and duration of the eye's movements. Now, Albert et al. show a similar mechanism appears to control hold signals for arm movements. In one set of experiments, muscle activity was measured as monkeys moved their arms or fingers to different target positions. In other experiments, human volunteers held a robot arm, and Albert et al. measured the forces they produced while reaching and holding still. Both the human and monkey experiments revealed a relationship between move signals and hold signals. Like for eye movements, hold signals for the arm could be calculated from the move signals. In further experiments with stroke patients where the brain had been damaged, the move signals were found to be deteriorated, but the way hold signals were calculated stayed the same. This suggests that there is an unknown structure within the brain that calculates hold signals based on move signals. Investigating how the brain holds the arm still may help scientists understand why some neurological conditions like stroke or dystonia cause unwanted movements or unusual postures. This might also lead scientists to develop new ways to treat these conditions.