Abstract

Trial-to-trial variability during visuomotor adaptation is usually explained as the result of two different sources, planning noise and execution noise. The estimation of the underlying variance parameters from observations involving varying feedback conditions cannot be achieved by standard techniques (Kalman filter) because they do not account for recursive noise propagation in a closed-loop system. We therefore developed a method to compute the exact likelihood of the output of a time-discrete and linear adaptation system as has been used to model visuomotor adaptation (Smith et al. in PLoS Biol 4(6):e179, 2006), observed under closed-loop and error-clamp conditions. We identified the variance parameters by maximizing this likelihood and compared the model prediction of the time course of variance and autocovariance with empiric data. The observed increase in variability during the early training phase could not be explained by planning noise and execution noise with constant variances. Extending the model by signal-dependent components of either execution noise or planning noise showed that the observed temporal changes of the trial-to-trial variability can be modeled by signal-dependent planning noise rather than signal-dependent execution noise. Comparing the variance time course between different training schedules showed that the signal-dependent increase of planning variance was specific for the fast adapting mechanism, whereas the assumption of constant planning variance was sufficient for the slow adapting mechanisms.

Highlights

  • Programming visually guided movements requires associating visual errors with the appropriate motor corrections

  • We evaluated the maximum differences of the population mean of yn predicted by model M4 and those predicted by the other models across the entire time course (0n < N)

  • The comparison with the model with error-dependent execution noise was less clear since the median ΔAIC3,4 was smaller but still positive. These results show that, during adaptation to visuomotor rotation, the assumption of constant execution noise and constant planning noise was clearly rejected by the data

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Programming visually guided movements requires associating visual errors with the appropriate motor corrections. The visual representations of the distance and direction of a target from the hand can guide a pointing movement. 1.1 Present state of modeling adaptation dynamics. Previous studies modeled force-field adaptation (Smith et al 2006), saccade adaptation Biological Cybernetics (2021) 115:59–86 A= as 0 0 af. . The model is identical with the one proposed by (Smith et al 2006) except the additional optional feature (for q > 0). That the execution noise v can partly be accounted for by the expected visual feedback

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.