4.2 Article

Motor adaptation does not differ when a perturbation is introduced abruptly or gradually

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06699-2

Keywords

Visuomotor adaptation; Motor learning; Two-rate model; Cerebellar ataxia; Older adults

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In skills training and rehabilitation, it is important to understand how to optimize implicit adaptation for minimal conscious effort. This study tested whether there are differences in motor performance when adapting to abrupt or gradual visuomotor rotation. The results showed no significant differences in performance between the two types of adaptation.
People continuously adapt their movements to ever-changing circumstances, and particularly in skills training and rehabilitation, it is crucial that we understand how to optimize implicit adaptation in order for these processes to require as little conscious effort as possible. Although it is generally assumed that the way to do this is by introducing perturbations gradually, the literature is ambivalent on the effectiveness of this approach. Here, we tested whether there are differences in motor performance when adapting to an abrupt compared to a ramped visuomotor rotation. Using a within-subjects design, we tested this question under 3 different rotation sizes: 30-degrees, 45-degrees, and 60-degrees, as well as in 3 different populations: younger adults, older adults, and patients with mild cerebellar ataxia. We find no significant differences in either the behavioural outcomes, or model fits, between abrupt and gradual learning across any of the different conditions. Neither age, nor cerebellar ataxia had any significant effect on error-sensitivity either. These findings together indicate that error-sensitivity is not modulated by introducing a perturbation abruptly compared to gradually, and is also unaffected by age or mild cerebellar ataxia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available