Cited by 497Motor Control and AdaptationNeurological disorders and treatmentsGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases

Intact ability to learn internal models of arm dynamics in Huntington's disease but not cerebellar degeneration

Open access
Smith, Maurice A., Shadmehr, Reza·2005·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Two different compensatory mechanisms are engaged when the nervous system senses errors during a reaching movement. First, on-line feedback control mechanisms produce in-flight corrections to reduce errors in the on-going movement. Second, these errors modify the internal model with which the motor plan is transformed into motor commands for the subsequent movements. What are the neural mechanisms of these compensatory systems? In a previous study, we reported that while on-line error correction was disturbed in patients with Huntington's disease (HD), it was largely intact in patients with cerebellar degeneration. Here we altered dynamics of reaching and studied the effect of error in one trial on the motor commands that initiated the subsequent trial. We observed that in patients with cerebellar degeneration, motor commands changed from trial-to-trial by an amount that was comparable to control subjects. However, these changes were random and were uninformed by the error in the preceding trial. In contrast, the change in motor commands of HD patients was strongly related to the error in the preceding trial. This error-dependent change had a sensitivity that was comparable to healthy controls. As a result, HD patients exhibited no significant deficits in adapting to novel arm dynamics, whereas cerebellar subjects were profoundly impaired. These results demonstrate a double dissociation between on-line and trial-to-trial error correction suggesting that these compensatory mechanisms have distinct neural bases that can be differentially affected by disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00943.2004

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, M. A., & Shadmehr, R.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2005-05
Volume
93
Issue
5
Pages
2809-2821
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1988596442
Cited by
497
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 33
FWCI
10.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Hereditary Disease Foundation
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS16375, P01NS016375, NS 37422, R01NS037422)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Keywords
Huntington's disease, cerebellar degeneration, internal models, arm dynamics, motor adaptation, error correction, motor command, reaching movements, double dissociation
MeSH terms
Adult, Arm, Female, Humans, Huntington Disease, Learning, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Motor Activity, Psychomotor Performance, Spinocerebellar Degenerations, Task Performance and Analysis

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