4.7 Article

Dissociable use-dependent processes for volitional goal-directed reaching

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0415

关键词

use-dependent learning; action selection; action execution; reinforcement learning; reward

资金

  1. NIH [HD055931]
  2. National Institute of NeurologicalDisorders and Stroke [R35NS116883-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Repetition of specific movement biases subsequent actions towards the practiced movement. Recent experiments have identified two sources of use-dependent biases: one from dynamic changes during motor planning and another reflecting a stable shift in motor execution. This study used a distributional analysis to examine the contribution of these biases in reaching.
Repetition of specific movement biases subsequent actions towards the practiced movement, a phenomenon known as use-dependent learning (UDL). Recent experiments that impose strict constraints on planning time have revealed two sources of use-dependent biases, one arising from dynamic changes occurring during motor planning and another reflecting a stable shift in motor execution. Here, we used a distributional analysis to examine the contribution of these biases in reaching. To create the conditions for UDL, the target appeared at a designated 'frequent' location on most trials, and at one of six 'rare' locations on other trials. Strikingly, the heading angles were bimodally distributed, with peaks at both frequent and rare target locations. Despite having no constraints on planning time, participants exhibited a robust bias towards the frequent target when movements were self-initiated quickly, the signature of a planning bias; notably, the peak near the rare target was shifted in the frequently practiced direction, the signature of an execution bias. Furthermore, these execution biases were not only replicated in a delayed-response task but were also insensitive to reward. Taken together, these results extend our understanding of how volitional movements are influenced by recent experience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据