Cited by 768Motor Control and AdaptationEmbodied and Extended CognitionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Explicit and implicit contributions to learning in a sensorimotor adaptation task

Open access
Taylor, Jordan A., Krakauer, John W., Ivry, Richard B.·2014·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Visuomotor adaptation has been thought to be an implicit process that results when a sensory-prediction error signal is used to update a forward model. A striking feature of human competence is the ability to receive verbal instructions and employ strategies to solve tasks; such explicit processes could be used during visuomotor adaptation. Here, we used a novel task design that allowed us to obtain continuous verbal reports of aiming direction while participants learned a visuomotor rotation. We had two main hypotheses: the contribution of explicit learning would be modulated by instruction and the contribution of implicit learning would be modulated by the form of error feedback. By directly assaying aiming direction, we could identify the time course of the explicit component and, via subtraction, isolate the implicit component of learning. There were marked differences in the time courses of explicit and implicit contributions to learning. Explicit learning, driven by target error, was achieved by initially large then smaller explorations of aiming direction biased toward the correct solution. In contrast, implicit learning, driven by a sensory-prediction error, was slow and monotonic. Continuous error feedback reduced the amplitude of explicit learning and increased the contribution of implicit learning. The presence of instruction slightly increased the rate of initial learning and only had a subtle effect on implicit learning. We conclude that visuomotor adaptation, even in the absence of instruction, results from the interplay between explicit learning driven by target error and implicit learning of a forward model driven by prediction error.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3619-13.2014

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • It is now known from careful psychophysical work that many distinct learning algorithms operate together to counter the effects of a perturbation during adaptation, even though phenotypically their summed behavior can look like pure error-based cerebellar learning.

    “Crucially, however, it is now known from careful psychophysical work that many distinct learning algorithms operate together to counter the effects of a perturbation during adaptation, even though phenotypically their summed behavior can look like pure error-based cerebellar learning (Huang et al., 2011;Taylor et al., 2014).”

    From Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias (2017) · cites this paper as Taylor et al., 2014

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
Taylor, J. A., Krakauer, J. W., & Ivry, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2014-02-19
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
3023-3032
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2083905756
Cited by
768
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 11
FWCI
21.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020220)
  • National Institutes of Health (7r01ns052804-05)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS074917, R01NS084948, R01NS-052804)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD060306)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visuomotor adaptation, explicit learning, implicit learning, forward model, prediction error, error feedback, verbal instructions, sensorimotor learning, motor learning, time course of learning
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cerebellum, Color, Cues, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Motor Skills, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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