Back

Individual variability in sensorimotor learning reflects trait-like neurobehavioral subject factors

Areshenkoff, C. N.; de Brouwer, A. J.; Standage, D.; Nashed, J. Y.; Gale, D. J.; Flanagan, J. R.; Gallivan, J.

2024-04-15 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.04.11.589135 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Models of Human motor behaviour often emphasize the computations performed by the motor system during learning. Yet, there is an emerging consensus that the learning of even simple motor actions can be augmented by sophisticated cognitive strategies, which rely upon executive functions implemented throughout the cortex. These executive functions, in turn, have been linked to stable subject differences in intrinsic brain organization function, observable even during rest. Here we show, using behavioural studies in humans, that individual differences in the rate of sensorimotor adaptation are linked to differences in executive function, as assessed using the classic trail-making task. Secondly, using separate train and test functional MRI datasets, we show that specific patterns of resting-state functional connectivity between higher-order cognitive brain networks, which have been previously linked to executive function, subsequently predict more rapid learning during sensorimotor adaptation. Importantly, this relationship was unique to cognitive brain networks, as the functional connectivity between sensorimotor brain networks did not predict subsequent motor learning performance. Together, these findings suggest that individual differences in motor learning reflect, to a substantial degree, trait-like subject differences in cognitive brain network structure. This perspective invites broader consideration as to the origins of motor learning ability, and links motor performance to an expansive literature implicating the coordinated functioning of the default mode, ventral attention, and frontoparietal networks in flexible behavioral control.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.