↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sensitivity to prediction error in reach adaptation
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, July 2012
DOI 10.1152/jn.00177.2012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mollie K. Marko, Adrian M. Haith, Michelle D. Harran, Reza Shadmehr

Abstract

It has been proposed that the brain predicts the sensory consequences of a movement and compares it to the actual sensory feedback. When the two differ, an error signal is formed, driving adaptation. How does an error in one trial alter performance in the subsequent trial? Here we show that the sensitivity to error is not constant but declines as a function of error magnitude. That is, one learns relatively less from large errors compared with small errors. We performed an experiment in which humans made reaching movements and randomly experienced an error in both their visual and proprioceptive feedback. Proprioceptive errors were created with force fields, and visual errors were formed by perturbing the cursor trajectory to create a visual error that was smaller, the same size, or larger than the proprioceptive error. We measured single-trial adaptation and calculated sensitivity to error, i.e., the ratio of the trial-to-trial change in motor commands to error size. We found that for both sensory modalities sensitivity decreased with increasing error size. A reanalysis of a number of previously published psychophysical results also exhibited this feature. Finally, we asked how the brain might encode sensitivity to error. We reanalyzed previously published probabilities of cerebellar complex spikes (CSs) and found that this probability declined with increasing error size. From this we posit that a CS may be representative of the sensitivity to error, and not error itself, a hypothesis that may explain conflicting reports about CSs and their relationship to error.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 4%
Germany 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 200 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 30%
Researcher 32 15%
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Professor 13 6%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 41 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 15%
Psychology 28 13%
Engineering 26 12%
Computer Science 12 6%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 38 18%