Cited by 400Motor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching

Open access
Burge, Johannes, Ernst, Marc O., Banks, Martin S.·2008·Journal of Vision

Abstract

Rapid reaching to a target is generally accurate but also contains random and systematic error. Random errors result from noise in visual measurement, motor planning, and reach execution. Systematic error results from systematic changes in the mapping between the visual estimate of target location and the motor command necessary to reach the target (e.g., new spectacles, muscular fatigue). Humans maintain accurate reaching by recalibrating the visuomotor system, but no widely accepted computational model of the process exists. Given certain boundary conditions, a statistically optimal solution is a Kalman filter. We compared human to Kalman filter behavior to determine how humans take into account the statistical properties of errors and the reliability with which those errors can be measured. For most conditions, human and Kalman filter behavior was similar: Increasing measurement uncertainty caused similar decreases in recalibration rate; directionally asymmetric uncertainty caused different rates in different directions; more variation in systematic error increased recalibration rate. However, behavior differed in one respect: Inserting random error by perturbing feedback position causes slower adaptation in Kalman filters but had no effect in humans. This difference may be due to how biological systems remain responsive to changes in environmental statistics. We discuss the implications of this work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/8.4.20

Cites

54 of 54 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burge, J., Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics (DE)
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2008-04-23
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
20
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2130931083
Cited by
400
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 40
FWCI
13.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY012851, EY12851)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
visuomotor adaptation, reaching, Kalman filter, systematic errors, random error, measurement uncertainty, statistical learning
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Ocular, Adaptation, Physiological, Cues, Humans, Psychomotor Performance, Visual Perception, Models, Statistical

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