Reach adaptation: What determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?

JoAnn Kluzik, Jörn Diedrichsen, Reza Shadmehr, Amy J Bastian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We make errors when learning to use a new tool. However, the cause of error may be ambiguous: is it because we misestimated properties of the tool or of our own arm? We considered a well-studied adaptation task in which people made goal-directed reaching movements while holding the handle of a robotic arm. The robot produced viscous forces that perturbed reach trajectories. As reaching improved with practice, did people recalibrate an internal model of their arm, or did they build an internal model of the novel tool (robot), or both? What factors influenced how the brain solved this credit assignment problem? To investigate these questions, we compared transfer of adaptation between three conditions: catch trials in which robot forces were turned off unannounced, robot-null trials in which subjects were told that forces were turned off, and free-space trials in which subjects still held the handle but watched as it was detached from the robot. Transfer to free space was 40% of that observed in unannounced catch trials. We next hypothesized that transfer to free space might increase if the training field changed gradually, rather than abruptly. Indeed, this method increased transfer to free space from 40 to 60%. Therefore although practice with a novel tool resulted in formation of an internal model of the tool, it also appeared to produce a transient change in the internal model of the subject's arm. Gradual changes in the tool's dynamics increased the extent to which the nervous system recalibrated the model of the subject's own arm.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1455-1464
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Neurophysiology
Volume100
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2008

Fingerprint

Robotics
Nervous System
Learning
Brain

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Reach adaptation : What determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm? / Kluzik, JoAnn; Diedrichsen, Jörn; Shadmehr, Reza; Bastian, Amy J.

In: Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 100, No. 3, 09.2008, p. 1455-1464.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7ea99d7a468c4a10b30371eab9dc4591,
title = "Reach adaptation: What determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?",
abstract = "We make errors when learning to use a new tool. However, the cause of error may be ambiguous: is it because we misestimated properties of the tool or of our own arm? We considered a well-studied adaptation task in which people made goal-directed reaching movements while holding the handle of a robotic arm. The robot produced viscous forces that perturbed reach trajectories. As reaching improved with practice, did people recalibrate an internal model of their arm, or did they build an internal model of the novel tool (robot), or both? What factors influenced how the brain solved this credit assignment problem? To investigate these questions, we compared transfer of adaptation between three conditions: catch trials in which robot forces were turned off unannounced, robot-null trials in which subjects were told that forces were turned off, and free-space trials in which subjects still held the handle but watched as it was detached from the robot. Transfer to free space was 40{\%} of that observed in unannounced catch trials. We next hypothesized that transfer to free space might increase if the training field changed gradually, rather than abruptly. Indeed, this method increased transfer to free space from 40 to 60{\%}. Therefore although practice with a novel tool resulted in formation of an internal model of the tool, it also appeared to produce a transient change in the internal model of the subject's arm. Gradual changes in the tool's dynamics increased the extent to which the nervous system recalibrated the model of the subject's own arm.",
author = "JoAnn Kluzik and J{\"o}rn Diedrichsen and Reza Shadmehr and Bastian, {Amy J}",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1152/jn.90334.2008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "100",
pages = "1455--1464",
journal = "Journal of Neurophysiology",
issn = "0022-3077",
publisher = "American Physiological Society",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reach adaptation

T2 - What determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm?

AU - Kluzik, JoAnn

AU - Diedrichsen, Jörn

AU - Shadmehr, Reza

AU - Bastian, Amy J

PY - 2008/9

Y1 - 2008/9

N2 - We make errors when learning to use a new tool. However, the cause of error may be ambiguous: is it because we misestimated properties of the tool or of our own arm? We considered a well-studied adaptation task in which people made goal-directed reaching movements while holding the handle of a robotic arm. The robot produced viscous forces that perturbed reach trajectories. As reaching improved with practice, did people recalibrate an internal model of their arm, or did they build an internal model of the novel tool (robot), or both? What factors influenced how the brain solved this credit assignment problem? To investigate these questions, we compared transfer of adaptation between three conditions: catch trials in which robot forces were turned off unannounced, robot-null trials in which subjects were told that forces were turned off, and free-space trials in which subjects still held the handle but watched as it was detached from the robot. Transfer to free space was 40% of that observed in unannounced catch trials. We next hypothesized that transfer to free space might increase if the training field changed gradually, rather than abruptly. Indeed, this method increased transfer to free space from 40 to 60%. Therefore although practice with a novel tool resulted in formation of an internal model of the tool, it also appeared to produce a transient change in the internal model of the subject's arm. Gradual changes in the tool's dynamics increased the extent to which the nervous system recalibrated the model of the subject's own arm.

AB - We make errors when learning to use a new tool. However, the cause of error may be ambiguous: is it because we misestimated properties of the tool or of our own arm? We considered a well-studied adaptation task in which people made goal-directed reaching movements while holding the handle of a robotic arm. The robot produced viscous forces that perturbed reach trajectories. As reaching improved with practice, did people recalibrate an internal model of their arm, or did they build an internal model of the novel tool (robot), or both? What factors influenced how the brain solved this credit assignment problem? To investigate these questions, we compared transfer of adaptation between three conditions: catch trials in which robot forces were turned off unannounced, robot-null trials in which subjects were told that forces were turned off, and free-space trials in which subjects still held the handle but watched as it was detached from the robot. Transfer to free space was 40% of that observed in unannounced catch trials. We next hypothesized that transfer to free space might increase if the training field changed gradually, rather than abruptly. Indeed, this method increased transfer to free space from 40 to 60%. Therefore although practice with a novel tool resulted in formation of an internal model of the tool, it also appeared to produce a transient change in the internal model of the subject's arm. Gradual changes in the tool's dynamics increased the extent to which the nervous system recalibrated the model of the subject's own arm.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57349131014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57349131014&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1152/jn.90334.2008

DO - 10.1152/jn.90334.2008

M3 - Article

C2 - 18596187

AN - SCOPUS:57349131014

VL - 100

SP - 1455

EP - 1464

JO - Journal of Neurophysiology

JF - Journal of Neurophysiology

SN - 0022-3077

IS - 3

ER -