The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 63 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Rethinking Motor Learning and Savings in Adaptation Paradigms: Model-Free Memory for Successful Actions Combines with Internal Models
Open accessAbstract
Although motor learning is likely to involve multiple processes, phenomena observed in error-based motor learning paradigms tend to be conceptualized in terms of only a single process – adaptation, which occurs through updating an internal model. Here we argue that fundamental phenomena like movement direction biases, savings (faster relearning) and interference do not relate to adaptation but instead are attributable to two additional learning processes that can be characterized as model-free: use-dependent plasticity and operant reinforcement. Although usually “hidden” behind adaptation, we demonstrate, with modified visuomotor rotation paradigms, that these distinct model-based and model-free processes combine to learn an error-based motor task: (1) Adaptation of an internal model channels movements toward successful error reduction in visual space. (2) Repetition of the newly adapted movement induces directional biases towards the repeated movement. (3) Operant reinforcement through association of the adapted movement with successful error reduction is responsible for savings.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that error-based motor adaptation paradigms conflate three learning processes: model-based adaptation, use-dependent plasticity, and operant reinforcement. Across modified visuomotor rotation experiments, savings depended on prior association of a successful hand-space movement with adaptation, not on adaptation alone.
Key findings
- Adaptation with movement repetition (Adp+Rep+) induced a directional bias toward the repeated 70° hand-space direction: hand-movement distributions were tighter than adaptation-only (mean SD 4.9±0.4° vs 11.7±0.45°, t(14)=-11.95, p<0.001), with bias slopes of 0.32±0.03 for trained targets and 0.42±0.04 for probe targets.
- Savings occurred only when adaptation was paired with repetition: Adp+Rep+ relearned faster (0.49±0.08 trial⁻¹) than naïve controls (0.13±0.02 trial⁻¹; t(14)=3.495, p=0.004), whereas adaptation-only (Adp+Rep−, 0.12±0.02 trial⁻¹) and repetition-only (Adp−Rep+) showed no savings. Adp+Rep+ also showed a 35% increase in average error reduced over the first 20 trials versus naïve (p=0.001).
- Savings transferred to an oppositely signed rotation when the required hand-space solution was the same: SAME-SOLNhand relearned faster (0.23±0.03 trial⁻¹) than initial learning (0.11±0.04 trial⁻¹; p=0.03), while SAME-SOLNvisual showed no savings (0.11±0.02 trial⁻¹; p=0.411).
- A state-space model fit adaptation-only data well (r²=0.968) but failed for Adp+Rep+ at asymptote (r²=-0.502), supporting an additional model-free process.
Methods
- Sixty healthy, right-handed subjects (mean age 24.7±4.9, 25 males) performed a visuomotor rotation reaching task with a mirror/air-jet apparatus; subjects were randomly assigned to groups across three experiments.
- Experiment 1 compared Adp+Rep+ and Adp+Rep− (n=8 each). Experiment 2 compared four groups: Adp+Rep+, Adp+Rep−, Adp−Rep+, Adp−Rep− (n=10, 10, 6, 6). Experiment 3 compared SAME-SOLNhand and SAME-SOLNvisual (n=6 each).
- Learning and relearning rates were estimated by fitting a single decaying exponential to error time series; trial-to-trial hand directions were simulated with a single-state state-space model; group comparisons used t-tests and repeated-measures ANOVA, with power analysis indicating a minimum of 6 subjects per group.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: Experiment 2 had two potential concerns—Adp+Rep+ and Adp+Rep− may have differed slightly in initial adaptation to the 95° target (~6°), and Adp+Rep− trained on 20° but was tested on 25°; the authors addressed these with additional +20° rotation groups at the 90° target, which showed comparable initial adaptation and still greater savings for Adp+Rep+.
- Stated in the paper: power analysis assumed an effect size from prior savings data and yielded a minimum of 6 subjects per group, so the negative results were argued to be likely true negatives.
- Evident from the text: group sizes were small (n=6–10), all data came from one laboratory and one reaching paradigm, and the model-free processes were inferred behaviorally rather than formally modeled or neurally dissociated.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
47 Own interpretation · 33 Own result · 32 Not checked yet · 3 Own method · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Repetition of the newly adapted movement induces directional biases towards the repeated movement.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The state-space model was an excellent predictor of the empirical data for Adp+Rep− (r2=0.968, Fig. 2C), which supports our assumption that asymptotic performance in Adp+Rep− can be completely accounted for by error-based learning of an internal model alone; subjects rotated”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Asymptotic performance in Adp+Rep− can be completely accounted for by error-based learning of an internal model alone.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, at training asymptote, movement directions in hand space for Adp+Rep+ were more tightly distributed around the repeated direction (mean s.d.=4.9±0.4°, mean±s.e.m) when compared to Adp+Rep− (mean s.d.=11.7±0.45°, t(14)=-11.95, p<0.001).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the first test trial after washout, both Adp+Rep+and Adp+Rep−, produced errors close to 25°, which indicated that washout was complete (Adp+Rep+: 23.73±1.18° (mean±s.e.m.); Adp+Rep−, 24.20±2.37, t(18)=-0.340, p=0.738) (Fig. 4A).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In support of our hypothesis, Adp+Rep+ showed significant savings (0.49±0.08 trial-1, mean±sem) when compared to the naïve training group Adp−Rep− (0.13±0.02 trial-1) (two-tailed t-test, t(14)=3.495, p=0.004).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found evidence for use-dependent plasticity in the form of a bias towards the repeated direction (i.e., the direction in hand space converged upon by adaptation) for both trained and untrained targets.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, in the first test trial of the -30° rotation, SAME-SOLNhand had an average error that was less than the -30° (-23.34±0.88°, one-tailed t(5)=7.56, p<0.001) while SAME-SOLNvisual had an error not significantly different from -30° (t(5)=-0.2, p=0.849) (Fig. 6B).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 3: Savings occurs for oppositely signed rotations if they share the same hand-space solution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, Adp+Rep+ had a significantly greater savings than the Adp+Rep− (0.15±0.01 trial-1 versus 0.08±0.02 trial-1, t(14)=3.06, p=0.009) (supplementary Fig. S1F).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore we also tested for savings in two additional groups with a +20° rotation in the 90° direction, where the two groups showed comparable degrees of initial adaptation (Adp+Rep−: 17.3±0.8°, Adp+Rep+: 18.51±0.9°, t(14)=-1.047, p=0.31)(supplementary Fig. S1A, E).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adp+Rep+, as expected, did induce a bias toward the mean of the hand movements at asymptote.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Use-dependent plasticity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected for generalization of adaptation, hand directions in Adp+Rep− were clockwise and gradually converged to naïve performance and this was predicted well by the state-space model (Fig. 2E).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adp+Rep+ crossed and began to show an increasing bias away from naive directions as the probe directions moved further away from the repeated direction in hand space (Fig. 2F); this is the opposite of the expectation for adaptation but entirely”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean movement direction at the end of training across subjects was 76.0±2.1° (mean±s.d.) for Adp+Rep− (supplementary Fig. S1D) and the mean movement direction at the end of training was 71.6±1.3° (mean±s.d.) for Adp+Rep+.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, no savings was observed for the repetition-only group, Adp−Rep+ (Fig. 4B); indeed the learning rate was not significantly different from naïve training in Adp−Rep− (0.16±0.04 trial-1 v.s. 0.13±0.02 trial-1, two-tailed t-test, t(10)=0.594, p=0.565) (Fig. 4C).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize Experiment 1, adaptation to a target sequence that led to movements distributed around the repeated direction in hand space led to a bias towards the repeated direction that was comparable for trained and untrained targets, with increasing absolute size of bias for farther away targets in both directions.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize Experiment 2, an adaptation protocol with movement repetition led to clear savings whereas neither adaptation alone nor repetition alone led to any savings.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hand direction versus target direction relationship was well described with a single linear fit (0 < slope ≪ 1) that had a close fit to both training and probe targets.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Use-dependent plasticity
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“subjects rotated their hand movement by an average of --13.97±1.41° (mean±s.d.) (the vertical displacement from the naïve line in Fig. 2C), or about 70% adaptation on average for all targets.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, Adp+Rep− (0.12±0.02 trial-1) were no faster than the naïve training control and showed no savings (t(14)=-0.39, p=0.70)(Fig. 4A,C).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the bias generated during Adp+Rep+, which can be plotted as the dependent relationship between displayed targets and hand movement direction, was also apparent during learning, with a slope of 0.32 (±0.03) for the trained targets that was comparable to the slope for the probe targets (0.42±0.04).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the prediction of operant reinforcement, SAME-SOLNhand showed savings for the -30° rotation after training on +30° (Fig. 6A); the relearning rate during test (0.23±0.03 trial-1) was significantly faster than initial learning (Fig. 6C) (paired one-tailed t(5)=-2.371, p=0.03).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 3: Savings occurs for oppositely signed rotations if they share the same hand-space solution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus we saw a marked savings effect for a +25° rotation for Adp+Rep+, but no savings at all for Adp+Rep−.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, no savings were seen for SAME-SOLNvisual which had a relearning rate of 0.11±0.02 trial-1 during test (Fig. 6B) (paired one-tailed t(5)=0.238, p=0.411).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 3: Savings occurs for oppositely signed rotations if they share the same hand-space solution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found evidence for operant reinforcement in the form of savings – subjects showed faster relearning when rotations of either sign (clockwise or counter-clockwise) required an adapted solution that coincided with a previously successful hand movement direction.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Adp+Rep+, the adaptation model was able to predict hand directions relatively well in the early phase of training (r2=0.753) but then began to fail as subjects developed a directional bias beyond what was expected from adaptation alone (r2=-0.502) (Fig. 2D, asymptotic training).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adp+Rep+ showed marked savings whereas Adp+Rep−showed no savings, even though they adapted to the same mean rotation.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Savings
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither repetition alone nor adaptation alone led to savings, which suggests that it is the association of the two that is critical.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have shown that use-dependent plasticity and operant reinforcement both occur along with adaptation.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite its apparent simplicity, the SSM framework fits trial-to-trial perturbation data extremely well (Ethier et al., 2008; Huang and Shadmehr, 2007; Scheidt et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2006; Tanaka et al., 2009).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that the association of movement repetition with successful adaptation is necessary and sufficient for savings.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In particular, relearning of a given perturbation for a second time is faster than initial learning – a phenomenon known as savings (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Kojima et al., 2004; Krakauer et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Zarahn et al., 2008) – whereas a basic single-timescale SSM predicts that learning should always occur at the same rate, regardless of past experience (Zarahn et al., 2008).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zarahn et al., 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although SSM variants that include multiple timescales of learning (Kording et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2006) are able to explain savings over short timescales, this approach fails to predict the fact that savings still occurs following a prolonged period of washout of initial learning (Krakauer et al., 2005; Zarahn et al., 2008).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the results of Experiment 3 suggest that savings is attributable a model-free operant memory for actions and not to faster re-learning or re-expression of a previously learned internal model.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 3: Savings occurs for oppositely signed rotations if they share the same hand-space solution
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More recently it has been shown that biases can be observed in parallel with acquisition of an internal model along the task-irrelevant dimension in a redundant task (Diedrichsen et al., 2010).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Diedrichsen et al., 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results are opposite of what would be predicted if the observed behavior were solely due to adaptation of an internal model and show that a model-free process based on repeated actions is in operation in Adp+Rep+ but not Adp+Rep−.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The core idea in all of these models is that savings is the result of either faster re-acquisition or re-expression of a previously learned internal model; i.e., they all explain savings within a model-based learning framework.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that errors were first reduced through adaptation but then were further reduced through mechanisms other than adaptation.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 1: Movement repetition caused by adaptation induced large directional biases
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we will argue that the process underlying savings is also model-free but distinct from use-dependent plasticity.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We had power of 0.8 (see Methods) and thus the negative results are likely true negatives.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The critical difference between our study and that by Diedrichsen and colleagues is that we reasoned that adaptation itself can act like a channel but in the task-relevant dimension – it not only reduces visual error but also guides subjects' hand towards a new path in hand space.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Use-dependent plasticity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the biases we observed here in the setting of adaptation appear to be larger compared to those induced by repetition alone, which suggests that repetition in the context of reducing errors in response to a perturbation may in itself generate reward that modulates use-dependent plasticity.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Use-dependent plasticity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We reasoned that the reward landscape is not flat during adaptation but rather is increasingly rewarding as the prediction error decreases, i.e., the hand movement that is induced by the adaptation process will be reinforced through increasing success (decreasing error).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Savings
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, additional learning mechanisms must be present which are model-free in the sense that they are associated with a memory for action independently of an internal model and are likely to be driven directly by task success (i.e. reward).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Any task implicitly carries some notion of success or failure that can be encapsulated mathematically through a cost (reward) function.
In the paper
“In the theory of reinforcement learning, the general problem to be solved is to use experience to identify a suitable control policy in an unknown or changing environment (Sutton and Barto, 1998).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sutton and Barto, 1998
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Savings is a form of procedural and motor memory that manifests as faster relearning compared with initial learning (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Smith et al., 2006; Zarahn et al., 2008).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Savings
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adaptation is the model-based component, while model-free components include use-dependent plasticity and operant reinforcement.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore each approach can be advantageous in different circumstances.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is exactly what has been found: patients with PD were able to adapt to initial rotation as well as control subjects but they did not show savings (Bedard and Sanes, 2011; Marinelli et al., 2009).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Savings
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bedard and Sanes, 2011
- Not checked yetcites Marinelli et al., 2009 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the contrary, we believe that adaptation is indifferent to reward outcomes on individual trials, and is purely sensitive to errors in the predicted state of the hand or cursor.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It appears, therefore, that adaptation is “automatic” – it is an obligate, perhaps reward-indifferent (Mazzoni and Krakauer, 2006), cerebellar-based (Martin et al., 1996a, b; Smith and Shadmehr, 2005; Tseng et al., 2007) learning process that will attempt to”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude from Experiment 2 that a reinforcement process was necessary and sufficient for savings, and that use-dependent plasticity is not sufficient for savings.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Savings
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Theoretical treatments have argued that competition between these two mechanisms enables the benefits of each to be combined to maximum effect (Daw et al., 2005).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Daw et al., 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were randomly assigned to groups in each experiment.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are right in our assertion that motor learning studied with error-based paradigms results from the combination of model-free and model-based learning processes then these paradigms may be well suited to study how the brain modularly assembles complex motor abilities.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In continuous and high-dimensional action spaces, pure model-free learning is unfeasible, especially if a detailed feedback control policy must be acquired.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Any task implicitly carries some notion of success or failure that can be encapsulated mathematically through a cost (reward) function.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The presence of dopamine receptors on cells in primary motor cortex (Huntley et al., 1992; Luft and Schwarz, 2009; Ziemann et al., 1997) could provide a candidate mechanism for reward-based modulation of such use-dependent plasticity (Hosp et al., 2011).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is a precedent for such unconscious reward-based learning in the perceptual learning literature, and the reward can be internal – it does not need to be explicitly provided by the experimenter (Seitz et al., 2009).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seitz et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, operant reinforcement may require dopaminergic projections to the striatum (Wachter et al., 2010).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wachter et al., 2010 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The workspace was calibrated so that the image of the cursor indicating hand position fell exactly on the unseen tip of the middle finger's location (i.e., veridical display) (Mazzoni et al., 2007).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > The set-up
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mazzoni et al., 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This idea of the value of “near-misses” has been argued for in reinforcement algorithms that assign value to near-misses even when actual reinforcement is not given on such trials (MacLin et al., 2007).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites MacLin et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A recent motor learning model has been conceptualized in terms of the existence of fast and slow error-based processes (Kording et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2006).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of separate learning processes may indicate an underlying anatomical separation.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
In the paper
“For an independent samples t-test using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8, and assuming an effect size d = 1.9375 (computed based on previously reported group means and standard deviation; time constant = 0.47 for savings and 0.16 for naïve, with s.d. = 0.16), the minimum sample size is 6 subjects per group.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Power analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zarahn et al., 2008 source
plainn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All subjects were naïve to the purpose of the study and gave informed consent in compliance to guidelines set forth by the Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Subjects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on our results, we argue that heretofore unexplained, or perhaps erroneously explained, phenomena in adaptation experiments result from the fact that most such experiments inadvertently lie somewhere between our adaptation-only protocol and our adaptation-plus-repetition protocol, with the result that three distinct forms of learning – adaptation, use-dependent plasticity, and operant”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Re-experiencing the same task with the same or even opposite rotational perturbations induces the learner to initially reduce error through pure adaptation but when their movements come within range of the attractor, savings occurs.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The rewarding/motivating nature of “near misses” has been reported for gambling where they increase the desire to play (Clark et al., 2009; Daw et al., 2006; Kakade and Dayan, 2002).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Discussion > Adaptation as model-based learning
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Asymptotic performance in Adp+Rep− can be completely accounted for by error-based learning of an internal model alone.
“which supports our assumption that asymptotic performance in Adp+Rep− can be completely accounted for by error-based learning of an internal model alone”
The paper relies on this without support.
The cerebellum is unaffected in Parkinson's disease.
“a structure unaffected in Parkinson's disease (PD)”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reinforcement is rotation angle invariant; the adaptation-guided direction in hand space is what matters.
“because reinforcement should be rotation angle invariant as it is the adaptation-guided direction in hand space that matters”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most behavior in error-based motor learning paradigms is well described by adaptation.
“In spite of the fact that most behavior in error-based motor learning paradigms is well described by adaptation, we argue here that there are phenomena in perturbation paradigms that cannot be explained in terms of adaptation alone.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Any task implicitly carries some notion of success or failure that can be encapsulated mathematically through a cost (reward) function.
“All motor learning can be conceptualized within this framework; even if there is no explicit reward structure, any task implicitly carries some notion of success or failure that can be encapsulated mathematically through a cost (reward) function.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In motor control, the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.
“In the case of motor control, however, we assume that the reward structure is unambiguous: success is achieved by the cursor reaching the target.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Crucially, however, it is now known from careful psychophysical work that many distinct learning algorithms operate together to counter the effects of a perturbation during adaptation, even though phenotypically their summed behavior can look like pure error-based cerebellar learning (Huang et al., 2011;Taylor et al., 2014).”
From Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias (2017) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2011
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(14) = -11.95reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(14)=-11.95, p < .001”
- Consistentt(18) = -0.34reported p = .738 · recomputed p = .738
“t(18)=-0.340, p = .738”
- Consistentt(14) = 3.495reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“t(14)=3.495, p = .004”
- Consistentt(14) = -0.39reported p = .7 · recomputed p = .702
“t(14)=-0.39, p = .70”
- Consistentt(18) = 4.62reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(18)=4.62, p < .001”
- Consistentt(14) = -4.175reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(14)=-4.175, p = .001”
- Consistentt(14) = -1.047reported p = .31 · recomputed p = .313
“t(14)=-1.047, p = .31”
- Consistentt(14) = 3.06reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .008
“t(14)=3.06, p = .009”
- Consistentt(10) = 0.594reported p = .565 · recomputed p = .566
“t(10)=0.594, p = .565”
- Consistentt(5) = -2.371reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .064
“t(5)=-2.371, p = .03”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentt(5) = 0.238reported p = .411 · recomputed p = .821
“t(5)=0.238, p = .411”
The paper states a one-tailed test
- Consistentt(5) = 7.56reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t(5)=7.56, p < .001”
- Consistentt(5) = -0.2reported p = .849 · recomputed p = .849
“t(5)=-0.2, p = .849”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Results > Experiment 2: Savings occurred following adaptation-induced repetition but not with either adaptation or repetition alone
“We fit a single exponential function to each subject's data to estimate the rate of error-reduction, expressed as the inverse of the time constant (in units of trial-1).”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Data Analysis
“The error reduction rate (i.e., learning and relearning rate) was defined as the time constant obtained by fitting the error time-series with a single decaying exponential function of the form y = C1 exp(-rate * x) +C0”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Experiment 3
“Block 4 was a washout block and had 80 baseline trials.”
§ Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models > Experimental Procedures > Experiment 3
“Block 4 consisted of 80 test trials (Fig. 5A).”
Citations
Cites
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
Reinforcement Learning: A Survey
Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Moore, A. W. (1996) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.301 · Cited by 8,972
Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology
Ebbinghaus, H. (2013) · Annals of Neurosciences · doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.200408 · Cited by 2,827
Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task
Shadmehr, R., & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. (1994) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.14-05-03208.1994 · Cited by 2,612
Daw, N. D., Niv, Y., & Dayan, P. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1560 · Cited by 2,533
Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans
Daw, N. D., O'Doherty, J. P., Dayan, P., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04766 · Cited by 2,224
By Carrot or by Stick: Cognitive Reinforcement Learning in Parkinsonism
Frank, M. J., Seeberger, L. C., & O'Reilly, R. C. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1102941 · Cited by 1,964
Error Correction, Sensory Prediction, and Adaptation in Motor Control
Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2010) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135 · Cited by 1,869
Self-citationThe Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1152408 · Cited by 1,791 · cited 1×
“Indeed there are data from other areas of cognitive neuroscience that demonstrate that repeating something that you have successfully learned is the best way to remember it (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2007; Karpicke and Roediger, 2008; Wulf and Shea, 2002).”
Model-based influences on humans’ choices and striatal prediction errors
Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2011) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.027 · Cited by 1,779
Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913) · doi:10.1037/10011-000 · Cited by 1,645
Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning
(2012) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/8291.003.0026 · Cited by 1,455
Gläscher, J., Daw, N., Dayan, P., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016 · Cited by 1,166
Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice
Classen, J., Liepert, J., Wise, S. P., Hallett, M., & Cohen, L. G. (1998) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1998.79.2.1117 · Cited by 1,156
Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning
Smith, M. A., Ghazizadeh, A., & Shadmehr, R. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040179 · Cited by 1,113
The Psychology and Neuroscience of Forgetting
Wixted, J. T. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141555 · Cited by 999
Consolidation in human motor memory
Brashers-Krug, T. M., Shadmehr, R., & Bizzi, E. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/382252a0 · Cited by 976
Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives
Thoroughman, K. A., & Shadmehr, R. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35037588 · Cited by 945
Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x · Cited by 898
Sensory prediction errors drive cerebellum-dependent adaptation of reaching
Tseng, Y.-W., Diedrichsen, J., Krakauer, J. W., Shadmehr, R., & Bastian, A. J. (2007) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00266.2007 · Cited by 883
Self-citationLearning of Visuomotor Transformations for Vectorial Planning of Reaching Trajectories
Krakauer, J. W., Pine, Z. M., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. P. (2000) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.20-23-08916.2000 · Cited by 874
Self-citationAn implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation
Mazzoni, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2006) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5317-05.2006 · Cited by 833
Self-citationPrinciples derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning
Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196276 · Cited by 829 · cited 1×
“Indeed there are data from other areas of cognitive neuroscience that demonstrate that repeating something that you have successfully learned is the best way to remember it (Chiviacowsky and Wulf, 2007; Karpicke and Roediger, 2008; Wulf and Shea, 2002).”
Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching
Krakauer, J. W., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. P. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/14826 · Cited by 797
Self-citationRapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory
Lackner, J. R., & DiZio, P. A. (1994) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1994.72.1.299 · Cited by 776
Galea, J. M., Vazquez, A., Pasricha, N., Orban de Xivry, J.-J., & Celnik, P. (2011) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq246 · Cited by 760
What are the computations of the cerebellum, the basal ganglia and the cerebral cortex?
Doya, K. (1999) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(99)00046-5 · Cited by 757
MOSAIC Model for Sensorimotor Learning and Control
Haruno, M., Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (2001) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/089976601750541778 · Cited by 729
Instrumental Responding following Reinforcer Devaluation
Adams, C. D., & Dickinson, A. (1981) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B · doi:10.1080/14640748108400816 · Cited by 687
Inside the brain of an elite athlete: the neural processes that support high achievement in sports
Yarrow, K., Brown, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2009) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2672 · Cited by 675
Self-citationMechanisms of use-dependent plasticity in the human motor cortex
Bütefisch, C. M., Davis, B. C., Wise, S. P., Sawaki, L. A., Kopylev, L., Claßen, J., & Cohen, L. G. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.7.3661 · Cited by 645
Throwing while looking through prisms. I. Focal olivocerebellar lesions impair adaptation
Martin, T. A., Keating, J. G., Goodkin, H. P., Bastian, A. J., & Thach, W. T. (1996) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/119.4.1183 · Cited by 625
Martin, T. A., Keating, J. G., Goodkin, H. P., Bastian, A. J., & Thach, W. T. (1996) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/119.4.1199 · Cited by 585
Why Don't We Move Faster? Parkinson's Disease, Movement Vigor, and Implicit Motivation
Mazzoni, P., Hristova, A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2007) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0264-07.2007 · Cited by 557
Self-citationPrediction Precedes Control in Motor Learning
Flanagan, J. R., Vetter, P., Johansson, R. S., & Wolpert, D. M. (2003) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00007-1 · Cited by 515
Modulation of practice-dependent plasticity in human motor cortex
Ziemann, U. (2001) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/124.6.1171 · Cited by 509
Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting
Krakauer, J. W., Ghez, C., & Ghilardi, M. F. (2005) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4218-04.2005 · Cited by 500
Self-citationLearning from Sensory and Reward Prediction Errors during Motor Adaptation
Izawa, J., & Shadmehr, R. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002012 · Cited by 500
Smith, M. A., & Shadmehr, R. (2005) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00943.2004 · Cited by 497
Dopamine: generalization and bonuses
Kakade, S. M., & Dayan, P. (2002) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(02)00048-5 · Cited by 495
Motor learning by field approximation.
Gandolfo, F., Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A., & Bizzi, E. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.9.3843 · Cited by 486
Donchin, O., Francis, J. T., & Shadmehr, R. (2003) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-27-09032.2003 · Cited by 442
Retrieval-induced forgetting: evidence for a recall-specific mechanism
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2000) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03214366 · Cited by 417
Learning to move amid uncertainty
Scheidt, R. A., Dingwell, J. B., & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. (2001) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.2001.86.2.971 · Cited by 411
Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry
Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.12.031 · Cited by 410
The dynamics of memory as a consequence of optimal adaptation to a changing body
Kording, K. P., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Shadmehr, R. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1901 · Cited by 393
Use-dependent and error-based learning of motor behaviors
Diedrichsen, J., White, O., Newman, D., & Lally, N. (2010) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5406-09.2010 · Cited by 376
Dopaminergic Projections from Midbrain to Primary Motor Cortex Mediate Motor Skill Learning
Hosp, J. A., Pekanovic, A., Rioult-Pedotti, M. S., & Luft, A. R. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5411-10.2011 · Cited by 354
Rewards evoke learning of unconsciously processed visual stimuli in adult humans
Seitz, A. R., Kim, D., & Watanabe, T. (2009) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.01.016 · Cited by 337
Feedback After Good Trials Enhances Learning
Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007) · Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599402 · Cited by 265
Rutledge, R. B., Lazzaro, S. C., Lau, B., Myers, C. E., Gluck, M. A., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3524-09.2009 · Cited by 259
Changes in human motor cortex excitability induced by dopaminergic and anti-dopaminergic drugs
Ziemann, U., Tergau, F., Bruns, D., Baudewig, J., & Paulus, W. (1997) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyography and Motor Control · doi:10.1016/s0924-980x(97)00050-7 · Cited by 242
Verstynen, T., & Sabes, P. N. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6525-10.2011 · Cited by 227
Gone but Not Forgotten: The Transient Nature of Retrieval-Induced Forgetting
MacLeod, M. D., & Macrae, C. N. (2001) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00325 · Cited by 215
Tong, C., Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2002) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-03-01108.2002 · Cited by 206
Dual Adaptation Supports a Parallel Architecture of Motor Memory
Lee, J.-Y., & Schweighofer, N. (2009) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1294-09.2009 · Cited by 202
Long-Term Retention Explained by a Model of Short-Term Learning in the Adaptive Control of Reaching
Joiner, W. M., & Smith, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.90706.2008 · Cited by 195
Memory of learning facilitates saccadic adaptation in the monkey
Kojima, Y., Iwamoto, Y., & Yoshida, K. (2004) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1741-04.2004 · Cited by 179 · cited 1×
“In particular, relearning of a given perturbation for a second time is faster than initial learning, a phenomenon known as savings (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Kojima et al., 2004; Krakauer et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Zarahn et al., 2008), whereas a basic single-timescale SSM predicts that learning…”
Tanaka, H., B, T. J. S. A., & Krakauer, J. W. (2009) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.90834.2008 · Cited by 173
Self-citationLearning of scaling factors and reference axes for reaching movements
Pine, Z. M., Krakauer, J. W., Gordon, J., & Ghez, C. P. (1996) · Neuroreport · doi:10.1097/00001756-199610020-00016 · Cited by 166
Self-citationConditions for interference versus facilitation during sequential sensorimotor adaptation
Bock, O. L., Schneider, S., & Bloomberg, J. J. (2001) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s002210100704 · Cited by 146
Zarahn, E., Weston, G. D., Liang, J., Mazzoni, P., & Krakauer, J. W. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.90529.2008 · Cited by 145
Self-citationSpontaneous recovery of motor memory during saccade adaptation
Ethier, V., Zee, D. S., & Shadmehr, R. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00015.2008 · Cited by 143
Wigmore, V., Tong, C., & Flanagan, J. R. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.28.2.447 · Cited by 141
Jax, S. A., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.425 · Cited by 137
Adaptation to rotated visual feedback: a re-examination of motor interference
Miall, R. C., Jenkinson, N., & Kulkarni, K. (2004) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-003-1630-2 · Cited by 130
Learning and consolidation of visuo-motor adaptation in Parkinson's disease
Marinelli, L., Crupi, D., Di Rocco, A., Bove, M., Eidelberg, D., Abbruzzese, G., & Ghilardi, M. F. (2009) · Parkinsonism & Related Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.parkreldis.2008.02.012 · Cited by 129
Sing, G. C., & Smith, M. A. (2010) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000893 · Cited by 127
Imamizu, H., Uno, Y., & Kawato, M. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.21.5.1174 · Cited by 115
Generalization of Motor Learning Based on Multiple Field Exposures and Local Adaptation
Malfait, N., Gribble, P. L., & Ostry, D. J. (2005) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00883.2004 · Cited by 115
The role of dopamine in cognitive sequence learning: evidence from Parkinson’s disease
Daphna Shohamy, A., Myers, C. E., Grossman, S., Sage, J., & Gluck, M. A. (2004) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2004.05.023 · Cited by 114
de Xivry, J. O., Criscimagna-Hemminger, S. E., & Shadmehr, R. (2010) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq192 · Cited by 113
Huntley, G. W., Morrison, J. H., Prikhozhan, A., & Sealfon, S. C. (1992) · Molecular Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0169-328x(92)90107-m · Cited by 100 · cited 2×
“The presence of dopamine receptors on cells in primary motor cortex (Huntley et al., 1992; Luft and Schwarz, 2009; Ziemann et al., 1997) could provide a candidate mechanism for reward-based modulation of such use-dependent plasticity (Hosp et al.”
BackgroundThe left hemisphere and the selection of learned actions
Rushworth, M. F. S., Nixon, P. D., Wade, D. T., Renowden, S., & Passingham, R. E. (1998) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00101-2 · Cited by 100
Persistence of Motor Memories Reflects Statistics of the Learning Event
Huang, V. S., & Shadmehr, R. (2009) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00237.2009 · Cited by 100
Self-citationDopaminergic signals in primary motor cortex
Luft, A. R., & Schwarz, S. (2009) · International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2009.05.004 · Cited by 99
Goal-directed control and its antipodes
Dayan, P. (2009) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2009.03.004 · Cited by 93
Basal ganglia-dependent processes in recalling learned visual-motor adaptations
Bédard, P., & Sanes, J. N. (2011) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2561-y · Cited by 91
Abeele, S. V., & Bock, O. L. (2001) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s002210100846 · Cited by 90
Imamizu, H., Uno, Y., & Kawato, M. (1995) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1174 · Cited by 86
Neuronal Correlates of Memory Formation in Motor Cortex after Adaptation to Force Field
Arce‐McShane, F. I., Novick, I., Mandelblat-Cerf, Y., & Vaadia, E. (2010) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1603-10.2010 · Cited by 70
Motor-Sensory Feedback and the Geometry of Visual Space
Held, R. M., & Rekosh, J. H. (1963) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.141.3582.722 · Cited by 69
MacLin, O. H., Dixon, M. R., Daugherty, D., & Small, S. L. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193153 · Cited by 65
Ajemian, R., D’Ausilio, A., Moorman, H., & Bizzi, E. (2010) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.528262 · Cited by 61
Evolution of Motor Memory During the Seconds After Observation of Motor Error
Huang, V. S., & Shadmehr, R. (2007) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.01281.2006 · Cited by 51
Self-citationA bayesian view of motor adaptation
Korenberg, A., & Ghahramani, Z. (2002) · Cited by 50
Motor skill learning depends on protein synthesis in the dorsal striatum after training
Wächter, T., Röhrich, S., Frank, A., Molina-Luna, K., Pekanovic, A., Hertler, B., Schubring-Giese, M., & Luft, A. R. (2010) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2027-7 · Cited by 41
Active learning: learning a motor skill without a coach
Huang, V. S., Shadmehr, R., & Diedrichsen, J. (2008) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.01095.2007 · Cited by 41
Self-citationEvidence for model-based action planning in a sequential finger movement task
Fermin, A., Yoshida, T., Ito, M., Yoshimoto, J., & Doya, K. (2010) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2010.526467 · Cited by 36
Modeling operant behavior in the Parkinsonian rat
Avila, I., Reilly, M. P., Sanabria, F., Posadas-Sánchez, D., Chavez, C. L., Banerjee, N., Killeen, P., & Castañeda, E. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.033 · Cited by 35
Arce‐McShane, F. I., Novick, I., Shahar, M., Link, Y., Ghez, C. P., & Vaadia, E. (2009) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004214 · Cited by 34
Inter-Joint Coupling Strategy During Adaptation to Novel Viscous Loads in Human Arm Movement
Debicki, D., & Gribble, P. L. (2004) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00119.2004 · Cited by 34
Krutky, M. A., & Perreault, E. (2007) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00750.2007 · Cited by 33
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Principles of sensorimotor learning
Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3112 · Cited by 1,391
Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias
Krakauer, J. W., Ghazanfar, A. A., Gomez-Marin, A., MacIver, M. A., & Poeppel, D. (2017) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.041 · Cited by 1,358
Self-citationKrakauer, J. W., Hadjiosif, A. M., Xu, J., Wong, A. L., & Haith, A. M. (2019) · Comprehensive physiology · doi:10.1002/cphy.c170043 · Cited by 918
Self-citationExplicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task
Taylor, J. A., Krakauer, J. W., & Ivry, R. B. (2014) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3619-13.2014 · Cited by 768
Self-citationTemporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability
Wu, H. G., Miyamoto, Y. R., Castro, L. N. G., Ölveczky, B. P., & Smith, M. A. (2014) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3616 · Cited by 679
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, V. S., Haith, A., Mazzoni, P., & Krakauer, J. W.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huang, Vincent S.
- Krakauer, John W.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 787-801
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3134523
- OpenAlex
- W2130609859
- Semantic Scholar
- 9ba1988d958d092cb1b5a09f36c1ea4b29ef8b09
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 15.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (7r01ns052804-05)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS-052804)
- 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
- motor learning, visuomotor adaptation, model-based learning, internal models, savings, interference, operant reinforcement, use-dependent plasticity, error-based learning, visuomotor rotation
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Models, Biological, Movement, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Young Adult
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
