The relationship between implicit and explicit processes during motor learning, and for visuomotor adaptation in particular, is poorly understood. We set up a conflict between implicit and explicit processes by instructing subjects to counter a visuomotor rotation using a cognitive strategy in a pointing task. Specifically, they were told the exact nature of the directional perturbation, a rotation that directed them 45° counterclockwise from the desired target, and they were instructed to counter it by aiming for the neighboring clockwise target, 45° away. Subjects were initially successful in completely negating the rotation with this strategy. Surprisingly, however, they were unable to sustain explicit control and made increasingly large errors to the desired target. The cognitive strategy failed because subjects simultaneously adapted unconsciously to the rotation to the neighboring target. Notably, the rate of implicit adaptation to the neighboring target was not significantly different from rotation adaptation in the absence of an opposing explicit strategy. These results indicate that explicit strategies cannot substitute for implicit adaptation to a visuomotor rotation and are in fact overridden by the motor planning system. This suggests that the motor system requires that planned and executed trajectories remain congruous in visual space, and enforces this correspondence even at the expense of an opposing explicit task goal.
People generally select a similar speed for a given motor task, such as reaching for a cup. One well established determinant of movement time is the speed–accuracy trade-off: movement time increases with the accuracy requirement. A second possible determinant is the energetic cost of making a movement. Parkinson's disease (PD), a condition characterized by generalized movement slowing (bradykinesia), provides the opportunity to directly explore this second possibility. We compared reaching movements of patients with PD with those of control subjects in a speed–accuracy trade-off task comprising conditions of increasing difficulty. Subjects completed as many trials as necessary to make 20 movements within a required speed range (trials to criterion,Nc). Difficulty was reflected in endpoint accuracy andNc. Patients were as accurate as control subjects in all conditions (i.e., PD did not affect the speed–accuracy trade-off). However,Ncwas consistently higher in patients, indicating reluctance to move fast although accuracy was not compromised. Specifically, the dependence ofNcon movement energy cost (slopeSN) was steeper in patients than in control subjects. This difference inSNsuggests that bradykinesia represents an implicit decision not to move fast because of a shift in the cost/benefit ratio of the energy expenditure needed to move at normal speed.SNwas less steep, but statistically significant, in control subjects, which demonstrates a role for energetic cost in the normal control of movement speed. We propose that, analogous to the established role of dopamine in explicit reward-seeking behavior, the dopaminergic projection to the striatum provides a signal for implicit “motor motivation.”
The public pays large sums of money to watch skilled motor performance. Notably, however, in recent decades motor skill learning (performance improvement beyond baseline levels) has received less experimental attention than motor adaptation (return to baseline performance in the setting of an external perturbation). Motor skill can be assessed at the levels of task success and movement quality, but the link between these levels remains poorly understood. We devised a motor skill task that required visually guided curved movements of the wrist without a perturbation, and we defined skill learning at the task level as a change in the speed–accuracy trade-off function (SAF). Practice in restricted speed ranges led to a global shift of the SAF. We asked how the SAF shift maps onto changes in trajectory kinematics, to establish a link between task-level performance and fine motor control. Although there were small changes in mean trajectory, improved performance largely consisted of reduction in trial-to-trial variability and increase in movement smoothness. We found evidence for improved feedback control, which could explain the reduction in variability but does not preclude other explanations such as an increased signal-to-noise ratio in cortical representations. Interestingly, submovement structure remained learning invariant. The global generalization of the SAF across a wide range of difficulty suggests that skill for this task is represented in a temporally scalable network. We propose that motor skill acquisition can be characterized as a slow reduction in movement variability, which is distinct from faster model-based learning that reduces systematic error in adaptation paradigms.
27 March 2012 in Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine
The primary manifestations of Parkinson’s disease are abnormalities of movement, including movement slowness, difficulties with gait and balance, and tremor. We know a considerable amount about the abnormalities of neuronal and muscle activity that correlate with these symptoms. Motor symptoms can also be described in terms of motor control, a level of description that explains how movement variables, such as a limb’s position and speed, are controlled and coordinated. Understanding motor symptoms as motor control abnormalities means to identify how the disease disrupts normal control processes. In the case of Parkinson’s disease, movement slowness, for example, would be explained by a disruption of the control processes that determine normal movement speed. Two long-term benefits of understanding the motor control basis of motor symptoms include the future design of neural prostheses to replace the function of damaged basal ganglia circuits, and the rational design of rehabilitation strategies. This type of understanding, however, remains limited, partly because of limitations in our knowledge of normal motor control. In this article, we review the concept of motor control and describe a few motor symptoms that illustrate the challenges in understanding such symptoms as motor control abnormalities.