Cited by 500Motor Control and AdaptationMemory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and Influences

Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference, and forgetting

Open access
Krakauer, John W., Ghez, Claude, Ghilardi, M. Felice·2005·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The paradigm task A-->task B-->task A, which varies the time interval between task A and task B, has been used extensively to investigate the consolidation of motor memory. Consolidation is defined as resistance to retrograde interference (interference by task B on initial learning of task A). Consolidation has been demonstrated for simple skills, motor sequencing, and learning of force fields. In contrast, evidence to date suggests that visuomotor learning does not consolidate. We have shown previously that adaptation to a 30 degrees screen-cursor rotation is faster and more complete on relearning 24 hr later. This improvement is prevented if a 30 degrees counter-rotation is learned 5 min after the original rotation. Here, we sought to identify conditions under which rotation learning becomes resistant to interference by a counter-rotation. In experiment 1, we found that interference persists even when the counter-rotation is learned 24 hr after the initial rotation. In experiment 2, we removed potential anterograde interference (interference by task B on relearning of task A) by introducing washout blocks before all of the learning blocks. In contrast to experiment 1, we found resistance to interference (i.e., consolidation) when the counter-rotation was learned after 24 hr but not after 5 min. In experiment 3, we doubled the amount of initial rotation learning and found resistance to interference even after 5 min. Our results suggest that persistent interference is attributable to anterograde effects on memory retrieval. When anterograde effects are removed, rotation learning consolidates both over time and with increased initial training.

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.4218-04.2005

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Relearning of a given perturbation for a second time is faster than initial learning (savings).

    “In particular, relearning of a given perturbation for a second time is faster than initial learning – a phenomenon known as savings (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Kojima et al., 2004; Krakauer et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2006; Zarahn et al., 2008) – whereas a basic single-timescale SSM predicts that learning should always occur at the same rate, regardless of past experience (Zarahn et al., 2008).”
  • SSM variants that include multiple timescales of learning explain savings over short timescales but fail to predict savings following a prolonged period of washout.

    “Although SSM variants that include multiple timescales of learning (Kording et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2006) are able to explain savings over short timescales, this approach fails to predict the fact that savings still occurs following a prolonged period of washout of initial learning (Krakauer et al., 2005; Zarahn et al., 2008).”

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
Krakauer, J. W., Ghez, C., & Ghilardi, M. F.
Affiliations
Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2005-01-12
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
473-478
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2012026952
Cited by
500
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 20
FWCI
8.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k08ns001961-05)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-K23 02138, NS K08 01961, K23NS002138)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
visuomotor adaptation, motor memory consolidation, forgetting, memory retrieval, motor learning
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Learning, Male, Memory, Models, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Rotation, 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