Reduced feedback barely slows down proprioceptive recalibration.

Introducing altered visual feedback of the hand produces quick adaptation of reaching movements. Our lab has shown that the associated shifts in estimates of the felt position of the hand saturate within a few training trials. The current study investigates whether the rapid changes in felt hand position that occur during classic visuomotor adaptation are diminished or slowed when training feedback is reduced. We reduced feedback by either providing visual feedback only at the end of the reach (terminal feedback) or constraining hand movements to reduce motor adaptation-related error signals such as sensory prediction errors and task errors (exposure). We measured changes as participants completed reaches with a 30° rotation, a -30° rotation, and clamped visual feedback, with these two "impoverished" training conditions, along with classic visuomotor adaptation training, while continuously estimating their felt hand position. Training with terminal feedback slightly reduced the initial rate of change in overall adaptation. However, the rate of change in hand localization, as well as the asymptote of hand localization shifts in both the terminal feedback group and the exposure training group was not noticeably different from those in the classic training group. Taken together, shifts in felt hand position are rapid and robust responses to sensory mismatches and are at best slightly modulated when feedback is reduced. This suggests that given the speed and invariance to the quality of feedback of proprioceptive recalibration, it could immediately contribute to all kinds of reach adaptation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Reaching to targets with altered visual feedback about hand position leads to adaptation of movements as well as shifts in estimates of felt hand position. Felt hand position can shift in as little as one trial, and here we show that there is no noticeable reduction in speed when the feedback about movements is impoverished, indicating the robustness of the process of recalibrating felt hand position.

Measures of Implicit and Explicit Adaptation Do Not Linearly Add.

Moving effectively is essential for any animal. Thus, many different kinds of brain processes likely contribute to learning and adapting movement. How these contributions are combined is unknown. Nevertheless, the field of motor adaptation has been working under the assumption that measures of explicit and implicit motor adaptation can simply be added in total adaptation. While this has been tested, we show that these tests were insufficient. We put this additivity assumption to the test in various ways and find that measures of implicit and explicit adaptation are not additive. This means that future studies should measure both implicit and explicit adaptation directly. It also challenges us to disentangle how various motor adaptation processes do combine when producing movements and may have implications for our understanding of other kinds of learning as well (data and code: https://osf.io/3yhw5).

Implicit motor learning within three trials.

In motor learning, the slow development of implicit learning is traditionally taken for granted. While much is known about training performance during adaptation to a perturbation in reaches, saccades and locomotion, little is known about the time course of the underlying implicit processes during normal motor adaptation. Implicit learning is characterized by both changes in internal models and state estimates of limb position. Here, we measure both as reach aftereffects and shifts in hand localization in our participants, after every training trial. The observed implicit changes were near asymptote after only one to three perturbed training trials and were not predicted by a two-rate model's slow process that is supposed to capture implicit learning. Hence, we show that implicit learning is much faster than conventionally believed, which has implications for rehabilitation and skills training.

The fast contribution of visual-proprioceptive discrepancy to reach aftereffects and proprioceptive recalibration.

Adapting reaches to altered visual feedback not only leads to motor changes, but also to shifts in perceived hand location; "proprioceptive recalibration". These changes are robust to many task variations and can occur quite rapidly. For instance, our previous study found both motor and sensory shifts arise in as few as 6 rotated-cursor training trials. The aim of this study is to investigate one of the training signals that contribute to these rapid sensory and motor changes. We do this by removing the visuomotor error signals associated with classic visuomotor rotation training; and provide only experience with a visual-proprioceptive discrepancy for training. While a force channel constrains reach direction 30o away from the target, the cursor representing the hand unerringly moves straight to the target. The resulting visual-proprioceptive discrepancy drives significant and rapid changes in no-cursor reaches and felt hand position, again within only 6 training trials. The extent of the sensory change is unexpectedly larger following the visual-proprioceptive discrepancy training. Not surprisingly the size of the reach aftereffects is substantially smaller than following classic visuomotor rotation training. However, the time course by which both changes emerge is similar in the two training types. These results suggest that even the mere exposure to a discrepancy between felt and seen hand location is a sufficient training signal to drive robust motor and sensory plasticity.

Time Course of Reach Adaptation and Proprioceptive Recalibration during Visuomotor Learning.

Training to reach with rotated visual feedback results in adaptation of hand movements, which persist when the perturbation is removed (reach aftereffects). Training also leads to changes in felt hand position, which we refer to as proprioceptive recalibration. The rate at which motor and proprioceptive changes develop throughout training is unknown. Here, we aim to determine the timescale of these changes in order to gain insight into the processes that may be involved in motor learning. Following six rotated reach training trials (30° rotation), at three radially located targets, we measured reach aftereffects and perceived hand position (proprioceptive guided reaches). Participants trained with opposing rotations one week apart to determine if the original training led to any retention or interference. Results suggest that both motor and proprioceptive recalibration occurred in as few as six rotated-cursor training trials (7.57° & 3.88° respectively), with no retention or interference present one week after training. Despite the rapid speed of both motor and sensory changes, these shifts do not saturate to the same degree. Thus, different processes may drive these changes and they may not constitute a single implicit process.