Inter-individual variability in motor learning due to differences in effective learning rates between generalist and specialist memory stores
Osu, R.; Sugimoto, N.; Yoshioka, T.; Schweighofer, N.; Kawato, M.
Show abstract
Humans exhibit large interindividual differences in motor learning ability. However, most previous studies have examined properties common across populations, with less emphasis on interindividual differences. We hypothesized here, based on our previous experimental and computational motor adaptation studies, that individual differences in effective learning rates between a generalist memory module that assumes environmental continuity and specialist modules that are responsive to trial-by-trial environmental changes could explain both large population-wise and individual-wise differences in dual tasks adaptation under block and random schedules. Participants adapted to two opposing force fields, either sequentially with alternating training blocks or simultaneously with random sequences. As previously reported, in the block training schedule, all participants adapted to the force field presented in a block but showed large interference in the subsequent opposing force field blocks, such that adapting to the two force fields was impossible. In contrast, in the random training schedule, participants could adapt to the two conflicting tasks simultaneously as a group; however, large interindividual variability was observed. A modified MOSAIC computational model of motor learning equipped with one generalist module and two specialist modules explained the observed behavior and variability for wide parameter ranges: when the predictions errors were large and consistent as in block schedules, the generalist module was selected to adapt quickly. In contrast, the specialist modules were selected when they more accurately predicted the changing environment than the generalist, as during random schedules; this resulted in consolidated memory specialized to each environment, but only when the ratio of learning rates of the generalist to specialists was relatively small. This dynamic selection process plays a crucial role in explaining the individual differences observed in motor learning abilities.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Did we get sensorimotor adaptation wrong? Implicit adaptation as direct policy updating rather than forward-model-based learning 96%
- Kernels of Motor Memory Formation: Temporal Generalization in Bimanual Adaptation 96%
- Motor sequence learning involves better prediction of the next action andoptimization of movement trajectories 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.