Filtering by
- All Subjects: Learning
- Creators: School of Molecular Sciences
- Creators: Brewer, Gene
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
Motor learning is the process of improving task execution according to some measure of performance. This can be divided into skill learning, a model-free process, and adaptation, a model-based process. Prior studies have indicated that adaptation results from two complementary learning systems with parallel organization. This report attempted to answer the question of whether a similar interaction leads to savings, a model-free process that is described as faster relearning when experiencing something familiar. This was tested in a two-week reaching task conducted on a robotic arm capable of perturbing movements. The task was designed so that the two sessions differed in their history of errors. By measuring the change in the learning rate, the savings was determined at various points. The results showed that the history of errors successfully modulated savings. Thus, this supports the notion that the two complementary systems interact to develop savings. Additionally, this report was part of a larger study that will explore the organizational structure of the complementary systems as well as the neural basis of this motor learning.
The purpose of this study is to know whether the primary motor cortex (M1) plays a role in the sensorimotor memory. It was hypothesized that temporary disruption of the M1 following the learning to minimize a tilt using a ‘L’ shaped object would negatively affect the retention of sensorimotor memory and thus reduce interference between the memory acquired in one context and the visual cues to perform the same task in a different context.
Significant findings were shown in blocks 1, 2, and 4. In block 3, subjects displayed insignificant amount of learning. However, it cannot be concluded that there is full interference in block 3. Therefore, looked into 3 effects in statistical analysis: the main effects of the blocks, the main effects of the trials, and the effects of the blocks and trials combined. From the block effects, there is a p-value of 0.001, and from the trial effects, the p-value is less than 0.001. Both of these effects indicate that there is learning occurring. However, when looking at the blocks * trials effects, we see a p-value of 0.002 < 0.05 indicating significant interaction between sensorimotor memories. Based on the results that were found, there is a presence of interference in all the blocks but not enough to justify the use of TMS in order to reduce interference because there is a partial reduction of interference from the control experiment. It is evident that the time delay might be the issue between context switches. By reducing the time delay between block 2 and 3 from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, I will hope to see significant learning to occur from the first trial to the second trial.
After answering a test question, feedback of the correct answer provided after a brief delay can be more beneficial to learning than feedback provided immediately (Brackbill & Kappy, 1962; Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972). Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain this delay-of-feedback benefit, with the most well supported being that delaying feedback promotes anticipation of the correct answer, which has been examined using curiosity as a measure of answer anticipation (Mullaney et al. 2014). The present study tested this model across two task designs, one designed to elicit epistemic curiosity, and one designed to elicit perceptual curiosity, to determine if the relationship between curiosity and feedback delay is type-dependent. In Task 1, participants answered trivia questions, reported their subjective level of curiosity to know the answer, and then received correct answer feedback after a variable delay (0s, 4s, or 8s). Task 2 was identical to Task 1, except that participants learned and were tested on the identities of blurred pictures, rather than trivia question answers. A subsequent learning retention test demonstrated a significant effect of curiosity, but not feedback delay, on performance in the trivia task, and no significant effect of curiosity, but a negative effect of feedback delay, on performance in the blurred pictures task. Neither task found a significant interaction effect between curiosity and delay group, which fails to support the answer anticipation model of the delay-of-feedback benefit.