4.4 Article

Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 54-62

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00266.2007

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR15488] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD007414-14, HD040289] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [NS037422] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cerebellum is an essential part of the neural network involved in adapting goal- directed arm movements. This adaptation might rely on two distinct signals: a sensory prediction error or a motor correction. Sensory prediction errors occur when an initial motor command is generated but the predicted sensory consequences do not match the observed values. In some tasks, these sensory errors are monitored and result in on- line corrective motor output as the movement progresses. Here we asked whether cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching relies on sensory or on- line motor corrections. Healthy controls and people with hereditary cerebellar ataxia reached during a visuomotor perturbation in two conditions: shooting movements without on- line corrections and pointing movements that allowed for on- line corrections. Sensory ( i. e., visual) errors were available in both conditions. Results showed that the addition of motor corrections did not influence adaptation in control subjects, suggesting that only sensory errors were needed for learning. Cerebellar subjects were comparably impaired in both adaptation conditions relative to controls, despite abnormal and inconsistent on- line motor correction. Specifically, poor on- line motor corrections were unrelated to cerebellar subjects' adaptation deficit ( i. e., adaptation did not worsen), further suggesting that only sensory prediction errors influence this process. Therefore adaptation to visuomotor perturbations depends on the cerebellum and is driven by the mismatch between predicted and actual sensory outcome of motor commands.

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

4.4
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