Cited by 143Motor Control and AdaptationMemory and Neural MechanismsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Spontaneous recovery of motor memory during saccade adaptation

Open access
Ethier, Vincent, Zee, David S., Shadmehr, Reza·2008·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00015.2008

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

The 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
Published
2008-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
2577-2583
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
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
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