Filtering by
- Member of: Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
- 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.
Level of education had little impact on whether or not women received the nutrition packet. Of those women with no education, 63.1% received the packet. Of those with any education, 63.9% got the packet.
In contrast, distance was strongly correlated with whether or not women received the packet. For example, of the women living within 200 meters of the health center, 93.2% received a nutrition packet. Of the women living between 250 meters and one kilometer of the health center, 68.4% received a nutrition packet. Of the women living over one kilometer from the health center, only 25% received a nutrition packet. The relationship between uptake of packets and women’s perception of distance to the health center was also explored. Out of 50 women who did not receive the packet, all of the women who said there was no health center in their village did live more than one kilometer from a health center. Of the women who lived between 250 meters and one kilometer from the health center, 40% felt it was too far. Of the women who lived more than a kilometer from the health center, 66.7% felt it was too far and 29.6% said there was no health center in their village. Again, it does not appear that ‘too far’ is just a default reason for women, but that actual distance, more so than education, is a major contributing factor in their ability to take the nutrition packet. These findings suggest that improving access to supplemental nutrition packets at the village level may increase uptake by the women.