Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to determine the time course of the trade-off between speed and accuracy, intraindividual variability, and movement transfer and retention (4 weeks after learning) of speed–accuracy tasks.
Methods
The participants in this study were healthy adults randomly divided into three groups (control versus constant versus variable). They were aged 19–24 years, and 30 (15 men and 15 women) were in each group. Participants had to perform various tasks with the right dominant hand: (a) simple reaction test; (b) maximal velocity measurement; and (c) a speed–accuracy task.
Results
During constant and variable learning, the trade-off in a speed–accuracy task in specific situations shifted toward improved motor planning and motor execution speed, and to reduced intraindividual variability. However, during variable learning, the maximal velocity and variability of motor planning time did not change. Constant learning effectively transferred into variable tasks in terms of reaction time, average velocity and maximal velocity, and these effects were greater than those associated with variable learning. However, the effects of constant learning did not transfer fully into the performance variability of variable movements. Variable learning effectively transferred into constant tasks for the coefficient of variation of the path of movement, average velocity, maximal velocity and reaction time. The retention effect depended neither on learning nor task specificity (constant versus variable tasks).
Conclusion
Constant learning speeds up but does not stabilize speed–accuracy movements in variable tasks; whereas, variable learning stabilizes but does not speed up speed–accuracy movements in constant tasks.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- CV:
-
Coefficient of variation
- DPA-1:
-
Dynamic parameter analyzer of human movements
- MVT:
-
Maximal velocity task
- SATconst :
-
Constant speed–accuracy task
- SATs:
-
Speed–accuracy tasks
- SATvar :
-
Variable speed–accuracy task
- SD:
-
Standard deviation
- SRT:
-
Simple reaction task
References
Bassett DS, Yang M, Wymbs NF, Grafton ST (2015) Learning-induced autonomy of sensorimotor systems. Nat Neurosci 18:744–751. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3993
Bernecke V, Pukenas K, Daniuseviciute L, Baranauskiene N, Paulauskas H, Eimantas N, Brazaitis M (2017) Sex-specific reliability and multidimensional stability of responses to tests assessing neuromuscular function. Homo 68:452–464
Braun DA, Aertsen A, Wolpert DM, Mehring C (2009) Motor task variation induces structural learning. Curr Biol 19:352–357
Buschman TJ, Miller EK (2014) Goal-direction and top-down control. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0471
Chittka L, Skorupski P, Raine NE (2009) Speed–accuracy tradeoffs in animal decision making. Trends Ecol Evol 24(7):400–407
Chaisanguanthum KS, Shen HH, Sabes PN (2014) Motor variability arises from a slow random walk in neural state. J Neurosci 34:12071–12080. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3001-13.2014
Dayan E, Cohen LG (2011) Neuroplasticity subserving motor skill learning. Neuron 72:443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.008
Elliott D, Hansen S, Grierson LE, Lyons J, Bennett SJ, Hayes SJ (2010) Goal-directed aiming: two components but multiple processes. Psychol Bull 136:1023–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020958
Forstmann BU, Anwander A, Schäfer A, Neumann J, Brown S, Wagenmakers EJ, Bogacz R, Turner R (2010) Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making. PNAS 107(36):15916–15920
Genewein T, Hez E, Razzaghpanah Z, Braun DA (2015) Structure learning in Bayesian sensorimotor integration. PLoS Comput Biol 11:e1004369. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004369
Haith AM, Huberdeau DM, Krakauer JW (2015) The influence of movement preparation time on the expression of visuomotor learning and savings. J Neurosci 35:5109–5117
Hardwick RM, Rottschy C, Chriss Miall R, Eickhoff SB (2013) A quantitative meta-analysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. Neuroimage 67:283–297
Huberdeau DM, Krakauer JW, Haith AM (2015) Dual-process decomposition in human sensorimotor adaptation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.03.003
Hunter SK, Pereira HM, Keenan KG (2016) The aging neuromuscular system and motor performance. J Appl Physiol 121(4):982–995. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00475.2016
Inoue M, Uchimura M, Karibe A, O’Shea J, Rossetti Y, Kitazawa S (2015) Three timescales in prism adaptation. J Neurophysiol 113:328–338. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00803.2013
Izawa J, Shadmehr R (2008) Online processing of uncertain information in visuomotor control. J Neurosci 28:11360–11368. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3063-08.2008
Izawa J, Criscimagna-Hemminger SE, Shadmehr R (2012) Cerebellar contributions to reach adaptation and learning sensory consequences of action. J Neurosci 32:4230–4239
Karni A, Meyer G, Rey-Hipolito C, Jezzard P, Adams MM, Turner R, Ungerleider LG (1998) The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:861–868
Körding K (2007) Decision theory: what “should” the nervous system do? Science 318:606–610
Korenberg AT, Ghahramani Z (2002) A Bayesian view of motor adaptation. Curr Perspect Cognit Divers 21:537–564
Krakauer JW, Mazzoni P (2011) Human sensorimotor learning: adaptation, skill, and beyond. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21:636–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2011.06.012
Magill RA, Hall KG (1990) A review of the contextual interference effect in motor skill acquisition. Hum Mov Sci 9:241–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(90)90005-X
McDougle SD, Bond KM, Taylor JA (2015) Explicit and implicit processes constitute the fast and slow processes of sensorimotor learning. J Neurosci 35:9568–9579. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5061-14.2015
Mickeviciene D, Rutkauskaite R, Valanciene D, Karanauskiene D, Brazaitis M, Skurvydas A (2019) Children, young adults, and older adults choose different fast learning strategies. J Aging Phys Act 27(4):466–472. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0102
Müller H, Sternad D (2004) Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks: three components of skill improvement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:212–233
Newell KM, Liu YT, Mayer-Kress G (2001) Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychol Rev 108:57–82
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
Pasupathy A, Miller EK (2005) Different time courses of learning-related activity in the prefrontal cortex and striatum. Nature 433:873–876
Perri RL, Berchicci M, Spinelli D, Di Russo F (2014) Individual differences in response speed and accuracy are associated to specific brain activities of two interacting systems. Front Behav Neurosci 8:251
Schmidt RA, Lee TD (2005) Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. Human Kinetics, Champaign
Shadmehr R, Smith MA, Krakauer JW (2010) Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 33:89–108. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-060909-153135
Shmuelof L, Yang J, Caffo B, Mazzoni P, Krakauer JW (2014) The neural correlates of learned motor acuity. J Neurophysiol 112:971–980. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00897.2013
Smith MA, Ghazizadeh A, Shadmehr R (2006) Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol 4:1035–1043. https://doi.org/10.1371/Journal.Pbio.0040179
Solianik R, Satas A, Mickeviciene D, Cekanauskaite A, Valanciene D, Majauskiene D, Skurvydas A (2018) Task-relevant cognitive and motor functions are prioritized during prolonged speed-accuracy motor task performance. Exp Brain Res 236(6):1665–1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5251-1
Stark-Inbar A, Raza M, Taylor JA, Ivry RB (2017) Individual differences in implicit motor learning: task specificity in sensorimotor adaptation and sequence learning. J Neurophysiol 117:412–428. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01141.2015
Thoroughman KA, Shadmehr R (2000) Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407:742–747
Vahdat S, Darainy M, Ostry DJ (2014) Structure of plasticity in human sensory and motor networks due to perceptual learning. J Neurosci 34(7):2451–2463
van Beers RJ (2012) How does our motor system determine its learning rate? PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049373
Wei K, Körding K (2011) Uncertainty of feedback and state estimation determines the speed of motor adaptation. Front Comput Neurosci 4:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2010.00011
Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2016) Computations underlying sensorimotor learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 37:7–11
Wu HG, Miyamoto YR, Gonzalez Castro LN, Ölveczky BP, Smith MA (2014) Temporal structure of motor variability is dynamically regulated and predicts motor learning ability. Nat Neurosci 17:312–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3616
Wulf G, Schmidt RA (1997) Variability of practice and implicit motor learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 23:987–1006
Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R (2010) Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ 44:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03421.x
Zuoza A, Skurvydas A, Mickeviciene D, Gutnik B, Zouzene D, Penchev B, Pencheva S (2009) Behavior of dominant and non dominant hands during ballistic protractive target-directed movements. Fiziol Cheloveka 35:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0362119709050090
Acknowledgements
Authors are grateful to participants for the time they have given to this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AS, MB and GM: conceived and designed the study; DM, DV, DM and AS: collected and analysed the data; AS, MB and GM: analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and provided critical feedback on the manuscript before approving.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local Ethics Committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Additional information
Communicated by Toshio Moritani.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Skurvydas, A., Satas, A., Valanciene, D. et al. “Two sides of the same coin”: constant motor learning speeds up, whereas variable motor learning stabilizes, speed–accuracy movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 120, 1027–1039 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04342-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-020-04342-4