Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 180, Issue 4, pp 629–640 | Cite as

The interference effects of non-rotated versus counter-rotated trials in visuomotor adaptation

  • Mark R. Hinder
  • Laura Walk
  • Daniel G. Woolley
  • Stephan Riek
  • Richard G. Carson
Research Article


An isometric torque-production task was used to investigate interference and retention in adaptation to multiple visuomotor environments. Subjects produced isometric flexion–extension and pronation–supination elbow torques to move a cursor to acquire targets as quickly as possible. Adaptation to a 30° counter-clockwise (CCW) rotation (task A), was followed by a period of rest (control), trials with no rotation (task B0), or trials with a 60° clockwise (CW) rotation (task B60). For all groups, retention of task A was assessed 5 h later. With initial training, all groups reduced the angular deviation of cursor paths early in the movements, indicating feedforward adaptation. For the control group, performance at commencement of the retest was significantly better than that at the beginning of the initial learning. For the B0 group, performance in the retest of task A was not dissimilar to that at the start of the initial learning, while for the B60 group retest performance in task A was markedly worse than initially observed. Our results indicate that close juxtaposition of two visuomotor environments precludes improved retest performance in the initial environment. Data for the B60 group, specifically larger angular errors upon retest compared with initial exposures, are consistent with the presence of anterograde interference. Furthermore, full interference occurred even when the visuomotor environment encountered in the second task was not rotated (B0). This latter novel result differs from those obtained for force field learning, where interference does not occur when task B does not impose perturbing forces, i.e., when B consists of a null field (Brashers-Krug et al., Nature 382:252–255, 1996). The results are consistent with recent proposals suggesting different interference mechanisms for visuomotor (kinematic) compared to force field (dynamic) adaptations, and have implications for the use of washout trials when studying interference between multiple visuomotor environments.


Visuomotor rotation Adaptation Internal model Interference Consolidation 


  1. Bock O, Schneider S, Bloomberg J (2001) Conditions for interference versus facilitation during sequential sensorimotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res 138:359–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382:252–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson RG, Smethurst CJ, Forner M, Meichenbaum DP, Mackey DC (2002) Role of peripheral afference during acquisition of a complex coordination task. Exp Brain Res 144:496–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caithness G, Osu R, Bays P, Chase H, Klassen J, Kawato M, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2004) Failure to consolidate the consolidation theory of learning for sensorimotor adaptation tasks. J Neurosci 24:8662–8671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J (1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Goedert KM, Willingham DB (2002) Patterns of interference in sequence learning and prism adaptation inconsistent with inconsistent with the consolidation hypothesis. Learn Memory 9:279–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kawato M (1999) Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Cur Opin Neurobiol 9:718–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keppel G (1982) Design and analysis: a researcher’s handbook, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hill, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Krakauer JW, Shadmehr R (2006) Consolidation of motor memory. Trends Neurosci 29:58–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neuro 11:1026–1031Google Scholar
  11. Krakauer JW, Ghez C Ghilardi MF (2005) Adaptation to visuomotor transformations: consolidation, interference and forgetting. J. Neurosci 25:473–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miall RC, Jenkinson N, Kulkarni K (2004) Adaptation to rotated visual feedback: a re-examination of motor interference. Exp Brain Res 154:201–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Newell A, Rosenbloom PS (1981) Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In: Anderson JR (ed) Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  14. Shadmehr R., Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Shadmehr R, Brashers-Krug T (1997) Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. J Neurosci 17:409–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Shemmell J, Forner M, Tresilian JR, Riek S, Barry BK, Carson RG (2005) Neuromuscular adaptation during skill acquisition on a two degree-of-freedom target acquisition task: isometric torque production. J Neurophysiol 94:3046–3057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith MA, Ghazizadeh A, Shadmehr R (2006) Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol 4:1035–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teasdale N, Bard C, Fleury, Young DE, Proteau L (1993) Determining movement onsets from time series. J Mot Behav 2:97–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tong C, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2002) Kinematics and dynamics are not represented independently in working memory: evidence from an interference study. J Neurosci 22:1108–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wigmore V, Tong C, Flanagan JR (2002) Visuomotor rotations of varying size and direction compete for a single internal model in motor working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:447–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Hinder
    • 1
  • Laura Walk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel G. Woolley
    • 1
  • Stephan Riek
    • 1
  • Richard G. Carson
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Perception and Motor Systems Laboratory, School of Human Movement StudiesUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Institute of PhysiologyGerman Sport UniversityCologneGermany
  3. 3.School of PsychologyQueen’s University of BelfastBelfastUK

Personalised recommendations