Abstract

Binary reward feedback on movement success is sufficient for learning some simple sensorimotor mappings in a reaching task, but not for some other tasks in which multiple kinematic factors contribute to performance. The critical condition for learning in more complex tasks remains unclear. Here, we investigate whether reward-based motor learning is possible in a multi-dimensional trajectory matching task and whether simplifying the task by providing feedback on one factor at a time (‘factorized feedback’) can improve learning. In two experiments, participants performed a trajectory matching task in which learning was measured as a reduction in the error. In Experiment 1, participants matched a straight trajectory slanted in depth. We factorized the task by providing feedback on the slant error, the length error, or on their composite. In Experiment 2, participants matched a curved trajectory, also slanted in depth. In this experiment, we factorized the feedback by providing feedback on the slant error, the curvature error, or on the integral difference between the matched and target trajectory. In Experiment 1, there was anecdotal evidence that participants learnt the multidimensional task. Factorization did not improve learning. In Experiment 2, there was anecdotal evidence the multidimensional task could not be learnt. We conclude that, within a complexity range, multiple kinematic factors can be learnt in parallel.

Highlights

  • Would Katy’s dance move improve more if she receives feedback on her the angle of her movement first, followed by the curvature, or does it improve more if she receives feedback on both simultaneously? Here, we investigated the effect of feedback factorization on learning a multidimensional task with binary reward feedback

  • We address these questions in a three-dimensional trajectory matching task akin to trajectory learning tasks used in other studies on reward-based motor l­earning[7,21]

  • Dots represent individual participants and the black line represents the median across participants. (c) Learning of the slant factor and length factor in the first learning phase

Read more

Summary

Results

As in Experiment 1, the time course of errors showed differences between groups (Fig. 6); the differences at baseline seemed smaller than in Experiment 1. We found that there were no significant differences between groups at baseline (for slant: X2 = 2.03, p = 0.36; for curvature: X2 = 2.97, p = 0.22 for the integral error: X2 = 2.13, p = 0.35). As in Experiment 1, we started with an across-groups analysis in which we tested whether the error in the different factors was reduced across the entire task. CI [0.01, 0.93]) and the integral error wasn’t reduced (z = − 0.03, p = 0.51, BF+0 = 0.6, δ = 0.33, 95% CI [0.01, 1.3]) We take this as anecdotal evidence that the multidimensional task and the individual factors could not be learnt (0.3 < BF+0 < 1).

Motivation d no feedback no feedback
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call