TY - JOUR
T1 - Motor learning of novel dynamics is not represented in a single global coordinate system
T2 - Evaluation of mixed coordinate representations and local learning
AU - Berniker, Max
AU - Franklin, David W.
AU - Flanagan, J. Randall
AU - Wolpert, Daniel M.
AU - Kording, Konrad
PY - 2014/3/15
Y1 - 2014/3/15
N2 - Successful motor performance requires the ability to adapt motor commands to task dynamics. A central question in movement neuroscience is how these dynamics are represented. Although it is widely assumed that dynamics (e.g., force fields) are represented in intrinsic, joint-based coordinates (Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. J Neurosci 14: 3208-3224, 1994), recent evidence has questioned this proposal. Here we reexamine the representation of dynamics in two experiments. By testing generalization following changes in shoulder, elbow, or wrist configurations, the first experiment tested for extrinsic, intrinsic, or object-centered representations. No single coordinate frame accounted for the pattern of generalization. Rather, generalization patterns were better accounted for by a mixture of representations or by models that assumed local learning and graded, decaying generalization. A second experiment, in which we replicated the design of an influential study that had suggested encoding in intrinsic coordinates (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994), yielded similar results. That is, we could not find evidence that dynamics are represented in a single coordinate system. Taken together, our experiments suggest that internal models do not employ a single coordinate system when generalizing and may well be represented as a mixture of coordinate systems, as a single system with local learning, or both.
AB - Successful motor performance requires the ability to adapt motor commands to task dynamics. A central question in movement neuroscience is how these dynamics are represented. Although it is widely assumed that dynamics (e.g., force fields) are represented in intrinsic, joint-based coordinates (Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA. J Neurosci 14: 3208-3224, 1994), recent evidence has questioned this proposal. Here we reexamine the representation of dynamics in two experiments. By testing generalization following changes in shoulder, elbow, or wrist configurations, the first experiment tested for extrinsic, intrinsic, or object-centered representations. No single coordinate frame accounted for the pattern of generalization. Rather, generalization patterns were better accounted for by a mixture of representations or by models that assumed local learning and graded, decaying generalization. A second experiment, in which we replicated the design of an influential study that had suggested encoding in intrinsic coordinates (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994), yielded similar results. That is, we could not find evidence that dynamics are represented in a single coordinate system. Taken together, our experiments suggest that internal models do not employ a single coordinate system when generalizing and may well be represented as a mixture of coordinate systems, as a single system with local learning, or both.
KW - Coordinate frames
KW - Internal models
KW - Intralimb generalization
KW - Motor adaptation
KW - Motor control
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900790518&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1152/jn.00493.2013
DO - 10.1152/jn.00493.2013
M3 - Article
C2 - 24353296
AN - SCOPUS:84900790518
SN - 0022-3077
VL - 111
SP - 1165
EP - 1182
JO - Journal of Neurophysiology
JF - Journal of Neurophysiology
IS - 6
ER -