↓ Skip to main content

Learning from the value of your mistakes: evidence for a risk-sensitive process in movement adaptation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
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
Learning from the value of your mistakes: evidence for a risk-sensitive process in movement adaptation
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael C. Trent, Alaa A. Ahmed

Abstract

Risk frames nearly every decision we make. Yet, remarkably little is known about whether risk influences how we learn new movements. Risk-sensitivity can emerge when there is a distortion between the absolute magnitude (actual value) and how much an individual values (subjective value) a given outcome. In movement, this translates to the difference between a given movement error and its consequences. Surprisingly, how movement learning can be influenced by the consequences associated with an error is not well-understood. It is traditionally assumed that all errors are created equal, i.e., that adaptation is proportional to an error experienced. However, not all movement errors of a given magnitude have the same subjective value. Here we examined whether the subjective value of error influenced how participants adapted their control from movement to movement. Seated human participants grasped the handle of a force-generating robotic arm and made horizontal reaching movements in two novel dynamic environments that penalized errors of the same magnitude differently, changing the subjective value of the errors. We expected that adaptation in response to errors of the same magnitude would differ between these environments. In the first environment, Stable, errors were not penalized. In the second environment, Unstable, rightward errors were penalized with the threat of unstable, cliff-like forces. We found that adaptation indeed differed. Specifically, in the Unstable environment, we observed reduced adaptation to leftward errors, an appropriate strategy that reduced the chance of a penalizing rightward error. These results demonstrate that adaptation is influenced by the subjective value of error, rather than solely the magnitude of error, and therefore is risk-sensitive. In other words, we may not simply learn from our mistakes, we may also learn from the value of our mistakes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 38%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 29%
Neuroscience 11 21%
Psychology 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2013.
All research outputs
#20,198,525
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,155
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,774
of 280,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#105
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.