Perceptual prediction error supports implicit process in motor learning.
Zhang, X.; Wei, K.
Show abstract
Error-based learning underlies motor learning, but what specific motor error drives implicit learning, the procedural component of motor skill, is unclear. A typical action consists of a movement and a performance outcome, e.g., grabbing a coffee cup involves a reaching movement and its actual landing of the hand relative to the target cup. While performance error is fundamental for the cognitive component of motor learning, what error, either performance or movement prediction error, underlies implicit motor learning has not been resolved. These two errors are hard to disentangle as the performance outcome is an integral part of the movement. Here we used the classical visuomotor adaptation paradigm, in which people learn to counter visual perturbations by deliberately aiming off the target, to dissociate the performance error from the prediction error. Using a series of behavioral experiments and model comparisons, we revealed that movement prediction error, but not performance error, can parsimoniously explain diverse learning effects. Importantly, despite the perturbation is visual, the movement prediction error is not specified in visual terms, but determined by a perceptual estimate of the hand kinematics. In other words, contrary to the widely-held concept of sensory prediction error, a perceptual prediction error drives implicit motor learning.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Did we get sensorimotor adaptation wrong? Implicit adaptation as direct policy updating rather than forward-model-based learning 99%
- Motor sequence learning involves better prediction of the next action andoptimization of movement trajectories 97%
- Attention defines the context for implicit sensorimotor adaptation 97%
"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.