Cited by 161Motor Control and AdaptationMemory and Neural MechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Dual-process decomposition in human sensorimotor adaptation

Huberdeau, David M, Krakauer, John W, Haith, Adrian M·2015·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

Multiple distinct learning processes are known to contribute to sensorimotor adaptation in humans. It is challenging to identify and characterize these multiple processes, however, because only their summed contribution can typically be observed. A general strategy for decomposing adaptation into its constituent components is to exploit their differential susceptibility to specific experimental manipulations. Several such approaches have recently emerged which, taken together, suggest that two fundamental systems operate together to achieve the adapted state: one system learns slowly, is implicit, is temporally stable over short breaks, is expressible at low reaction times, and its properties do not change based on experience. The second learns rapidly, is explicit, requires a long preparation time to be expressed, and exhibits long-term memory for prior learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.conb.2015.03.003

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The distinct algorithms operating in adaptation experiments include error-based learning, reinforcement learning, and cognitive strategies.

    “The distinct algorithms operating in adaptation experiments include error-based learning, reinforcement learning, and cognitive strategies (Huberdeau et al., 2015).”

    From Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias (2017) · cites this paper as Huberdeau et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huberdeau, D. M., Krakauer, J. W., & Haith, A. M.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Krakauer, John W
  • Haith, Adrian M
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
33
Pages
71-77
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099070313
Cited by
161
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (1358756)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
sensorimotor adaptation, dual-process theory, implicit learning, explicit learning, motor learning, learning memory, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Awareness, Humans, Learning, Movement, Psychomotor Performance, Mental Recall

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review