Motor planning and execution establish distinct feedforward and feedback motor histories
Seegelke, C.; Heed, T.
Show abstract
Movements are systematically affected by the recent motor history. These history effects may be induced either by reused motor plans or from lingering tuning of the previous movements' execution. We dissociated planning and execution using four experimental manipulations across two complementary motor paradigms. We isolated planning by preventing execution with stop signals and mechanical blocks, and execution by moving participants' hand passively using a robot manipulandum. History effects emerged in feedforward movement aspects - reaction time and early movement kinematics - following isolated planning. In contrast, they were absent or markedly reduced for isolated execution. History effects emerged also in late movement aspect that involves sensory feedback during execution - movement accuracy and precision - but only when movements were both planned and executed. Feedforward effects generalized across hands, whereas feedback effects were effector specific. Thus, prior motor planning and execution make distinct and complementary contributions in shaping future motor behavior.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Integration of memory and sensory information in skilled sequence production 96%
- Motor sequence learning involves better prediction of the next action andoptimization of movement trajectories 95%
- Did we get sensorimotor adaptation wrong? Implicit adaptation as direct policy updating rather than forward-model-based learning 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Increase in weighting of vision vs. proprioception associated with force field adaptation 96%
- External error attribution dampens efferent-basedpredictions but not proprioceptive changes in handlocalization 96%
- Of hands, tools, and exploding dots: How different action states and effects separate visuomotor memories 96%
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.