Ryan T. Roemmich, Andrew W. Long, Amy J. Bastian  Current Biology 

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Social Calls Predict Foraging Success in Big Brown Bats
Advertisements

Fumihiro Kano, Satoshi Hirata  Current Biology 
Gemmata obscuriglobus
Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis, Alexander Mathis, Naoshige Uchida  Neuron 
Context-Dependent Decay of Motor Memories during Skill Acquisition
Victoria F. Ratcliffe, David Reby  Current Biology 
Ian S. Howard, Daniel M. Wolpert, David W. Franklin  Current Biology 
Volume 21, Issue 8, Pages (April 2011)
Aaron R. Seitz, Praveen K. Pilly, Christopher C. Pack  Current Biology 
Pre-constancy Vision in Infants
Generalizable Learning: Practice Makes Perfect — But at What?
Sensory-Motor Integration: More Variability Reduces Individuality
Ian S. Howard, Daniel M. Wolpert, David W. Franklin  Current Biology 
Volume 21, Issue 20, Pages R837-R838 (October 2011)
Volume 21, Issue 19, Pages (October 2011)
Mapping Load-Bearing in the Mammalian Spindle Reveals Local Kinetochore Fiber Anchorage that Provides Mechanical Isolation and Redundancy  Mary Williard.
Mismatch Receptive Fields in Mouse Visual Cortex
Sing-Hang Cheung, Fang Fang, Sheng He, Gordon E. Legge  Current Biology 
Clayton P. Mosher, Prisca E. Zimmerman, Katalin M. Gothard 
The Primate Cerebellum Selectively Encodes Unexpected Self-Motion
Context-Dependent Decay of Motor Memories during Skill Acquisition
Scale-Invariant Movement Encoding in the Human Motor System
Volume 27, Issue 20, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Neural Circuit Inference from Function to Structure
Antarctic sea ice losses drive gains in benthic carbon drawdown
Fumihiro Kano, Satoshi Hirata  Current Biology 
Visual Attention: Size Matters
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages (March 2017)
A Switching Observer for Human Perceptual Estimation
Inversely Active Striatal Projection Neurons and Interneurons Selectively Delimit Useful Behavioral Sequences  Nuné Martiros, Alexandra A. Burgess, Ann.
Volume 26, Issue 7, Pages (April 2016)
Zhang-Yi Liang, Mark Andrew Hallen, Sharyn Anne Endow  Current Biology 
Mapping Load-Bearing in the Mammalian Spindle Reveals Local Kinetochore Fiber Anchorage that Provides Mechanical Isolation and Redundancy  Mary Williard.
Rémi Bos, Christian Gainer, Marla B. Feller  Current Biology 
Rapid Innate Defensive Responses of Mice to Looming Visual Stimuli
Contrast Adaptation and Representation in Human Early Visual Cortex
Hippocampal “Time Cells”: Time versus Path Integration
The Occipital Place Area Is Causally Involved in Representing Environmental Boundaries during Navigation  Joshua B. Julian, Jack Ryan, Roy H. Hamilton,
A Switching Observer for Human Perceptual Estimation
Integration Trumps Selection in Object Recognition
Georg B. Keller, Tobias Bonhoeffer, Mark Hübener  Neuron 
Perception Matches Selectivity in the Human Anterior Color Center
Volume 25, Issue 5, Pages (March 2015)
Bettina Sorger, Joel Reithler, Brigitte Dahmen, Rainer Goebel 
Volume 77, Issue 6, Pages (March 2013)
Fish choose appropriately when and with whom to collaborate
Deciphering the “Fuzzy” Interaction of FG Nucleoporins and Transport Factors Using Small-Angle Neutron Scattering  Samuel Sparks, Deniz B. Temel, Michael.
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages (February 2009)
Direct Two-Dimensional Access to the Spatial Location of Covert Attention in Macaque Prefrontal Cortex  Elaine Astrand, Claire Wardak, Pierre Baraduc,
The Normalization Model of Attention
Masaya Hirashima, Daichi Nozaki  Current Biology 
Neural Locus of Color Afterimages
Computer Use Changes Generalization of Movement Learning
Volume 16, Issue 20, Pages (October 2006)
Motor Control: No Constant but Change
Encoding of Stimulus Probability in Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex
Environmental Consistency Determines the Rate of Motor Adaptation
Kevin R. Foster, Thomas Bell  Current Biology 
Humans Can Continuously Optimize Energetic Cost during Walking
Volume 23, Issue 21, Pages (November 2013)
Goal-Driven Behavioral Adaptations in Gap-Climbing Drosophila
Sound Facilitates Visual Learning
Volume 23, Issue 14, Pages (July 2013)
Kazumichi Matsumiya, Satoshi Shioiri  Current Biology 
Coupled Oscillator Dynamics of Vocal Turn-Taking in Monkeys
Gaby Maimon, Andrew D. Straw, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Nonvisual Motor Training Influences Biological Motion Perception
Visual Crowding Is Correlated with Awareness
Responsibility Assignment in Redundant Systems
Volume 19, Issue 14, Pages (July 2009)
Presentation transcript:

Seeing the Errors You Feel Enhances Locomotor Performance but Not Learning  Ryan T. Roemmich, Andrew W. Long, Amy J. Bastian  Current Biology  Volume 26, Issue 20, Pages 2707-2716 (October 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012 Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Lab Setup for All Experiments and Visual Display for Experiments 1–3 (A) Participants walked on a split-belt treadmill while viewing visual feedback about their step lengths, or without visual feedback and instead a television show/movie. We recorded participant kinematics (pale blue markers) using three-dimensional motion capture. (B) Example participant kinematics and corresponding visual display for experiments 1–3 with visual feedback (left) and without visual feedback (right). Note that the visual feedback does not indicate real-time foot position, but rather step length (i.e., the distance between ankle markers) at heel-strike. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Experiment 1 Protocol and Results (A) Experiment 1 protocols are shown for the feedback and no feedback groups. The protocols are identical with the exception that the feedback group received visual feedback of their individual step lengths during adaptation while the no feedback group watched a movie instead. (B) Mean ± SE adaptation curves across participants within the feedback (blue) and no feedback (green) groups are shown. The curves are truncated in length to match the participant that took the fewest strides during adaptation. Data points immediately following the adaptation curves show the step length asymmetry during plateau (mean ± SE of the last 30 strides) for each group. (C) Mean deadaptation curves across participants within the feedback (blue) and no feedback (green) groups ± SE are shown. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Experiment 1 Individual Participant and Group Model Fits (A) Dual-rate adaptation model fits are shown for adaptation and deadaptation symmetry change data from each participant in the no feedback group. The data are shown in light green, the fit in dark green, and the perturbation (i.e., 1 for split belts, 0 for tied belts) in red. (B) Dual-rate adaptation model fit to the group mean no feedback data during adaptation and deadaptation. The motor output and adaptation (which overlap) are shown in green, slow process in magenta, fast process in purple, and perturbation in pink. (C) Voluntary correction model fit to the adaptation and deadaptation group mean symmetry change data in the feedback group. The motor output is shown in blue, adaptation in gray, slow process in magenta, fast process in purple, voluntary correction in pink, and perturbation in red. Note that the only difference between the fits on (B) and (C) is the presence of the voluntary correction process that also then changes the motor output. See also Figures S1 and S2. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Experiment 2 Protocol and Results (A) Experiment 2 protocols are shown for the short adapt-feedback and short adapt-no feedback groups. These protocols are identical to those tested in experiment 1 except adaptation is truncated to 1 min. (B) Adaptation predictions from the voluntary correction model based on parameters set in experiment 1 (top) and mean ± SE adaptation curves across participants within the short adapt-feedback (purple) and short adapt-no feedback (dark green) groups (bottom) are shown. Data points immediately following the adaptation curves show the step length asymmetry (mean ± SE) of the last ten strides of adaptation for each group. ∗ indicates a significant difference with p < 0.05. (C) Deadaptation predictions from the voluntary correction model based on parameters set in experiment 1 (top) and mean deadaptation curves across participants within the short adapt-feedback (purple) and no feedback (dark green) groups ±SE (bottom) are shown. See also Figures S3 and S4. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Experiment 3 Protocol and Results (A) Experiment 3 protocols are shown for the short feedback and short feedback-deadapt groups. (B) Adaptation predictions from the voluntary correction model based on parameters set in experiment 1 (top) and mean ± SE adaptation curves across participants within the short feedback group when the feedback was on (cyan) and off (red) as well as the no feedback (green) group from experiment 1 (bottom) are shown. Data points immediately following the adaptation curves show the step length asymmetry (mean ± SE) of the last ten strides for each group. ∗ indicates a significant difference with p < 0.05. (C) Deadaptation predictions from the voluntary correction model based on parameters set in experiment 1 (top) and mean deadaptation curves across participants within the short feedback-deadapt group when the feedback was on (brown) and off (yellow) as well as the no feedback (green) group from experiment 1 (bottom) are shown. See also Figure S5. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Experiment 4 Protocol and Results (A) Experiment 4 protocol is shown for the short video feedback group. (B) Adaptation predictions from the voluntary correction model based on parameters set in experiment 1 (top) and mean ± SE adaptation curves across participants within the short video feedback group when the feedback was on (magenta) and off (dark red) as well as the no feedback (green) group from experiment 1 (bottom) are shown. Data points immediately following the adaptation curves show the step length asymmetry (mean ± SE) of the last ten strides for each group. ∗ indicates a significant difference with p < 0.05. See also Figures S6 and S7 and Table S1. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Experiment 3 Individual Step Lengths and Joint Kinematics (A) Mean ± SE slow and fast step lengths during adaptation in the short feedback group when the feedback was on (slow in dark blue, fast in cyan) and off (slow in dark red, fast in light red). Data points immediately following the adaptation curves show the step length asymmetry (mean ± SE) of the last ten strides for each feedback condition. (B) Mean ± SE ensemble ankle (top), knee (middle), and hip (bottom) angles for the short feedback group averaged over the last five strides when the feedback was on and off. Positive values indicate flexion angles and negative indicate extension. Current Biology 2016 26, 2707-2716DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.012) Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions