Prediction error in implicit adaptation during visually- and memory-guided reaching tasks

Human movements are adjusted by motor adaptation in order to maintain their accuracy. There are two systems in motor adaptation, referred to as explicit or implicit adaptation. It has been suggested that the implicit adaptation is based on the prediction error and has been used in a number of motor adaptation studies. This study aimed to examine the effect of visual memory on prediction error in implicit visuomotor adaptation by comparing visually- and memory-guided reaching tasks. The visually-guided task is thought to be implicit learning based on prediction error, whereas the memory-guided task requires more cognitive processes. We observed the adaptation to visuomotor rotation feedback that is gradually rotated. We found that the adaptation and retention rates were higher in the visually-guided task than in the memory-guided task. Furthermore, the delta-band power obtained by electroencephalography (EEG) in the visually-guided task was increased immediately following the visual feedback, which indicates that the prediction error was larger in the visually-guided task. Our results show that the visuomotor adaptation is enhanced in the visually-guided task because the prediction error, which contributes update of the internal model, was more reliable than in the memory-guided task. Therefore, we suggest that the processing of the prediction error is affected by the task-type, which in turn affects the rate of the visuomotor adaptation.

Assessing explicit processes does not influence the magnitude of implicit processes

Implicit (unconscious) and explicit (strategy) processes have been shown to contribute to visuomotor adaptation. Current methods, such as the Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) and the Verbal Report Framework (VRF), simultaneously evaluate both implicit and explicit contributions to visuomotor adaptation. It is unclear whether the act of assessing explicit adaptation leads to variations in the magnitude of implicit adaptation observed. To address this question, four groups of participants adapted their reaches to a 40° clockwise visuomotor rotation. Implicit and explicit adaptation were assessed in a PDP-IE group and a VRF-IE group following 3 blocks of rotated reach training trials. In contrast, only implicit adaptation was assessed at the same time points for a PDP-I group and VRF-I group. Results indicated a similar magnitude of implicit adaptation regardless of whether explicit adaptation was assessed or not. Thus, assessing explicit adaptation simultaneously with implicit adaptation following reach adaptation does not influence the magnitude of implicit adaptation established via the PDP and VRF methods.

Punishments and rewards both modestly impair visuomotor memory retention

While the effects of rewards on memory appear well documented, the effects of punishments remain uncertain. Based on neuroimaging data, this study tested the hypothesis that, as compared to a neutral condition, a context allowing successful punishment avoidance would enhance memory to a similar extent as rewards. In a fully within-subject and counter-balanced design, participants (n = 18) took part in 3 distinct learning sessions during which the delivery of performance-contingent monetary punishments and rewards was manipulated. Specifically, participants had to reach towards visual targets while compensating for a gradually introduced visual deviation. Accuracy at achieving targets was either punished (Hit: "+0$"; Miss: "-0.5$), rewarded (Hit: "+0.5$"; Miss: "-0$"), or associated with neutral binary feedback (Hit: "Hit"; Miss: "Miss"). Retention was assessed through reach aftereffects both immediately and 24 h after initial acquisition. The results disconfirmed the hypothesis by showing that the punishment and reward learning sessions both impaired retention as compared to the neutral session, suggesting that both types of incentives similarly impaired memory formation and consolidation. Two alternative but complementary interpretations are discussed. One interpretation is that the presence of punishments and rewards induced a negative learning context, which - based on neurobiological data - could have been sufficient to interfere with memory formation and consolidation. Another interpretation is that punishments and rewards emphasized the disrupting effects of target hits on implicit learning processes, therefore yielding retention impairments. Altogether, these results suggest that incentives can have counter-productive effects on memory.

Assessing and defining explicit processes in visuomotor adaptation

The Process Dissociation Procedure (PDP) and Verbal Report Framework (VRF) reveal that both explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) processes contribute to visuomotor adaptation. We looked to determine whether these two assessment methods establish similar processes underlying visuomotor adaptation by comparing the magnitude of explicit and implicit adaptation over time between the two assessments and to post-experiment assessments of awareness of the visuomotor distortion. Three groups of participants (PDP, VRF, VRF No-Cursor) completed three blocks of reach training in a virtual environment with a cursor rotated 40° clockwise relative to hand motion. Explicit and implicit adaptations were assessed immediately following each block, and again 5 min later. The VRF No-Cursor group completed the same assessment trials as the VRF group, but no visual feedback was presented during explicit and implicit assessment. Finally, participants completed a post-experiment questionnaire and a drawing task to assess their awareness of the visuomotor rotation and changes in reaches at the end of the experiment, respectively. We found that all groups adapted their reaches to the rotation. Averaged across participants, the magnitude and retention of explicit and implicit adaptations were similar between the PDP group and VRF group, with the VRF group demonstrating greater implicit adaptation than the VRF No-Cursor group. Furthermore, the magnitude of explicit adaptation established in the VRF group was not related to participant's post-experiment awareness of the visuomotor distortion nor how they had changed their reaches, as observed in the PDP group and VRF No-Cursor group. Together, these results indicate that, explicit adaptation established via typical VRF methods does not reflect one's awareness of the visuomotor distortion at the end of the experiment, and hence the established processes underlying visuomotor adaptation are dependent on method of assessment (i.e., PDP versus VRF).

The influence of awareness on explicit and implicit contributions to visuomotor adaptation over time

Explicit (strategic) and implicit (unconscious) processes play a role in visuomotor adaptation (Bond and Taylor, J Neurophysiol 113:3836-3849, https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00009.2015 , 2015; Werner et al., PLoS ONE 10:1-18, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123321 , 2015). We investigated the contributions of explicit and implicit processes to visuomotor adaptation when awareness was manipulated directly vs. indirectly, and asked how these contributions changed over time. Participants were assigned to a Strategy or No-Strategy group. Those in the Strategy group were made aware of the visuomotor distortion directly. Participants were further subdivided into groups to train with a large (60°), medium (40°) or small (20°) visuomotor distortion, providing the potential for awareness to develop indirectly. Participants reached with their respective distorted cursor, followed by a series of no-cursor reaches to assess the contributions of explicit and implicit processes to visuomotor adaptation after every 30 reach training trials. Within the no-cursor reaching trials, participants reached (1) with any strategies they had gained during training (explicit + implicit processes), and (2) as accurately to the target as possible (implicit processes). Results showed that implicit contributions were greatest in the No-Strategy group, took time to develop, and were transient, as partial decay was seen following a 5-min rest. As well, implicit contributions were similar (i.e., plateaued), regardless of the rotation size participants trained with. In contrast, explicit contributions were greatest in the Strategy group, increased with rotation size, and remained consistent over time. Taken together, results reveal that there are notable differences in the stability of explicit and implicit processes and their potential to contribute to visuomotor adaptation depending on if awareness is provided directly.