Spontaneous recovery of motor memory during saccade adaptation
Open accessAbstract
It is possible that motor adaptation in timescales of minutes is supported by two distinct processes: one process that learns slowly from error but has strong retention, and another that learns rapidly from error but has poor retention. This two-state model makes the prediction that if a period of adaptation is followed by a period of reverse-adaptation, then in the subsequent period in which errors are clamped to zero (error-clamp trials) there will be a spontaneous recovery, i.e., a rebound of behavior toward the initial level of adaptation. Here we tested and confirmed this prediction during double-step, on-axis, saccade adaptation. When people adapted their saccadic gain to a magnitude other than one (adaptation) and then the gain was rapidly reversed back to one (reverse-adaptation), in the subsequent error-clamp trials (visual target placed on the fovea after the saccade) the gain reverted toward the initially adapted value and then gradually reverted toward normal. We estimated that the fast system was about 20-fold more sensitive to error than the slow system, but had a time constant of 28 s, whereas the slow system had a time constant of nearly 8 min. Therefore short-term adaptive mechanisms that maintain accuracy of saccades rely on a memory system that has characteristics of a multistate process with a logarithmic distribution of timescales.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The state space model (SSM) fits trial-to-trial perturbation data extremely well.
“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).”
From Rethinking motor learning and savings in adaptation paradigms: model-free memory for successful actions combines with internal models (2011) · cites this paper as Ethier et al., 2008
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 143
- Authors
- Ethier, V., Zee, D. S., & Shadmehr, R.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2577-2583
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- PMC
- PMC2733835
- OpenAlex
- W2142996960
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007057)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS037422)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- saccade adaptation, motor memory, spontaneous recovery, two-state model, error sensitivity, retention, motor learning
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Physiological, Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Extinction, Psychological, Humans, Memory, Movement, Photic Stimulation, Reversal Learning, Saccades, Visual Perception
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