Cited by 41Motor Control and AdaptationReinforcement Learning in RoboticsSport Psychology and Performance

Active learning: learning a motor skill without a coach

Open access
Huang, Vincent S., Shadmehr, Reza, Diedrichsen, Jörn·2008·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

When we learn a new skill (e.g., golf) without a coach, we are "active learners": we have to choose the specific components of the task on which to train (e.g., iron, driver, putter, etc.). What guides our selection of the training sequence? How do choices that people make compare with choices made by machine learning algorithms that attempt to optimize performance? We asked subjects to learn the novel dynamics of a robotic tool while moving it in four directions. They were instructed to choose their practice directions to maximize their performance in subsequent tests. We found that their choices were strongly influenced by motor errors: subjects tended to immediately repeat an action if that action had produced a large error. This strategy was correlated with better performance on test trials. However, even when participants performed perfectly on a movement, they did not avoid repeating that movement. The probability of repeating an action did not drop below chance even when no errors were observed. This behavior led to suboptimal performance. It also violated a strong prediction of current machine learning algorithms, which solve the active learning problem by choosing a training sequence that will maximally reduce the learner's uncertainty about the task. While we show that these algorithms do not provide an adequate description of human behavior, our results suggest ways to improve human motor learning by helping people choose an optimal training sequence.

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 · 10.1152/jn.01095.2007

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • In a previous active learning study, subjects repeated successful movements more frequently than error-based learning would predict.

    “We found that subjects repeated successful movements more frequently than error-based learning would predict; from a pure error-based learning perspective, such behavior is sub-optimal as it competes with time that could be spent on practice to target directions still associated with large errors – why revisit targets that you have already solved?”

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

Authors
Huang, V. S., Shadmehr, R., & Diedrichsen, J.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2008-08
Volume
100
Issue
2
Pages
879-887
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2150169083
Cited by
41
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 37422)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
active learning (machine learning), motor skill learning, motor errors, error-based learning, uncertainty reduction
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Computer Simulation, Humans, Knowledge of Results, Psychological, Learning, Models, Neurological, Motor Skills, Practice, Psychological, Probability, Task Performance and Analysis, Logistic Models, Problem-Based Learning

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