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.

Introduction: In-store promotion of food products leads to more frequent purchases. Product promotion can vary by store characteristics. We compared marketing strategies used by grocery stores to promote fruit and vegetables (FV) in neighborhoods with varying socio-economic and racial/ethnic characteristics.<br/><br/>Methods: Data was collected from a random sample of 12 large grocery stores from the same national chain located within a 15-mile radius of Downtown Phoenix. Store zip-code level median household income was used to classify stores as located in lower (<$50,000) or higher (>$50,000) income areas. Stores located in neighborhoods with more than 50% Hispanic population were classified as majority Hispanic serving. The ProPromo tool was adapted to document the presence and promotion of FV at 8 distinct locations throughout each store. Types of promotion strategies documented included displays, price promotions, size, or themes.<br/><br/>Results: FV were present at the entrance, islands, checkouts, and produce section; while fruits were promoted in all of these locations, vegetables were promotion in fewer locations. All stores used size and price promotion to promote FV; display was used to promote vegetables in 2 stores and fruits in all stores. On average stores promoted 32 fruits and 38 vegetables. Stores serving higher and lower income areas promoted similar numbers of FV. However, stores in Hispanic majority neighborhoods promoted fewer FV (66) in comparison to those in Hispanic minority areas (73).<br/><br/>Conclusion: Fruit and vegetable promotion disparity associated with neighborhood demographics may contribute to disparities in fruit and vegetable consumption.