CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 316Motor Control and AdaptationEmbodied and Extended CognitionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Estimating the sources of motor errors for adaptation and generalization

Open access
Berniker, Max, Kording, Konrad·2008·Nature Neuroscience
DOI 10.1038/nn.2229PMC PMC2707921
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Motor adaptation is usually defined as the process by which our nervous system produces accurate movements while the properties of our bodies and our environment continuously change. Many experimental and theoretical studies have characterized this process by assuming that the nervous system uses internal models to compensate for motor errors. Here we extend these approaches and construct a probabilistic model that not only compensates for motor errors but estimates the sources of these errors. These estimates dictate how the nervous system should generalize. For example, estimated changes of limb properties will affect movements across the workspace but not movements with the other limb. We provide evidence that many movement-generalization phenomena emerge from a strategy by which the nervous system estimates the sources of our motor errors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn.2229

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • If the behavioral response to catch trials is the mirror image of the initial perturbation-induced change, this indicates that the motor system incorporated the perturbation into its internal motor plan and updated its internal model.

    “If the behavioral response to the catch trials produces a movement that is the mirror image of the initial change in response caused by the imposed perturbation, this provides evidence that the motor system has incorporated the perturbation into its internal motor plan and thus updated its internal model of the consequences of its motor command.”

    From Neural Correlates of Sensory Prediction Errors in Monkeys: Evidence for Internal Models of Voluntary Self-Motion in the Cerebellum (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results section (“Generalization to natural hand movements”; page unavailable) says that removing a force field produces aftereffects in the opposite orientation because the model has updated its estimates of body and world properties. This supports interpreting an opposite-direction response as evidence of adaptation, but the passage does not specifically discuss catch trials or establish that the resulting movement is a mirror image of the initial perturbation-induced movement. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous motor learning studies used catch trials to assess whether an internal model had been updated.

    “Furthermore, previous motor learning studies have further used ‘catch trials’ (which refers to removal of the experimentally induced perturbation unexpectedly for single trials during a learning paradigm) as a way to assess whether an internal model has been updated [15].”

    From Neural Correlates of Sensory Prediction Errors in Monkeys: Evidence for Internal Models of Voluntary Self-Motion in the Cerebellum (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (Inertial disturbance studies; page unavailable) describe aftereffects when a perturbation is removed, consistent with using removal to reveal adaptation. But our copy does not say that previous studies used catch trials—unexpected, single-trial removals during learning—to assess internal-model updates (searched: catch trials, single-trial removal). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The brain updates its internal model of movement consequences to adapt to new circumstances.

    “Studies have suggested that in order to deal with such challenges, the brain updates its internal model of the consequences of movements in order to adapt to the new circumstances [15].”

    From Neural Correlates of Sensory Prediction Errors in Monkeys: Evidence for Internal Models of Voluntary Self-Motion in the Cerebellum (2015) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Recent work confirms and extends the assessment that humans act as rational Bayesian estimators, in perception and in action, across a wide variety of domains.

    “Recent work con fi rms and extends this assessment, suggesting that humans act as rational Bayesian estimators, in perception and in action, across a wide variety of domains (Berniker & Körding 2008; Körding et al. 2007; Yu 2007).”

    From Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science (2013) · cites this paper as Berniker & Körding 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Berniker, M., & Kording, K.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Berniker, Max
ORCID
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-11-16
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
1454-1461
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
DOI
10.1038/nn.2229
PMC
PMC2707921
OpenAlex
W2158535651
Cited by
316
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS057814)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025741)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007418)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
motor adaptation, internal models, motor control
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Bayes Theorem, Biomechanical Phenomena, Computer Simulation, Postural Balance, Feedback, Generalization, Psychological, Hand, Humans, Kinesthesis, Models, Biological, Movement, Psychomotor Performance, Nonlinear Dynamics, Upper Extremity

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