For example, muscleresponse can change because of fatigue, a condition where the disturbance has a fast timescale or because of disease where the disturbance is much slower. Here we hypothesize that the nervous system adapts in a way that reflects the temporal properties of such potential disturbances. According to a Bayesian formulation of this idea, movement error results in a credit assignment problem:what timescale is responsible for this disturbance? The adaptation schedule influences the behavior of the optimal learner, changing estimates at different timescalesas well as the uncertainty. A system that adapts in this way predicts many properties observed in saccadic gain adaptation. It well predicts the timecourses of motor adaptation in cases of partial sensory deprivation and reversals of the adaptation direction.

Here gm) is the error on the nth movement7 made in direction M") (8 possible

Reaching movements require the brain to generate motor commands that rely on an internal model of the task's dynamics. Here we consider the errors that subjects make early in their reaching trajectories to various targets as they learn an internal model. Using a framework from function approximation, we argue that the sequence of errors should reflect the process of gradient descent. If so, then the sequence of errors should obey hidden state transitions of a simple dynamical system. Fitting the system to human data, we find a surprisingly good fit accounting for 98% of the variance. This allows us to draw tentative conclusions about the basis elements used by the brain in transforming sensory space to motor commands. To test the robustness of the results, we estimate the shape of the basis elements under two conditions: in a traditional learning paradigm with a consistent force field, and in a random sequence of force fields where learning is not possible. Remarkably, we find that the basis remains invariant.

Reaching movements require the brain to generate motor commands that rely on an internal model of the task's dynamics. Here we consider the errors that subjects make early in their reaching trajectories to various targets as they learn an internal model. Using a framework from function approximation, we argue that the sequence of errors should reflect the process of gradient descent. If so, then the sequence of errors should obey hidden state transitions of a simple dynamical system. Fitting the system to human data, we find a surprisingly good fit accounting for 98% of the variance. This allows us to draw tentative conclusions about the basis elements used by the brain in transforming sensory space to motor commands. To test the robustness of the results, we estimate the shape of the basis elements under two conditions: in a traditional learning paradigm with a consistent force field, and in a random sequence of force fields where learning is not possible. Remarkably, we find that the basis remains invariant.

Based on computational principles, the concept of an internal model for adaptive control has been divided into a forward and an inverse model. However, there is as yet little evidence that learning control by the eNS is through adaptation of one or the other. Here we examine two adaptive control architectures, one based only on the inverse model and other based on a combination of forward and inverse models. We then show that for reaching movements of the hand in novel force fields, only the learning of the forward model results in key characteristics of performance that match the kinematics ofhuman subjects. In contrast, the adaptive control system that relies only on the inverse model fails to produce the kinematic patterns observed in the subjects, despite the fact that it is more stable.

Based on computational principles, the concept of an internal model for adaptive control has been divided into a forward and an inverse model. However, there is as yet little evidence that learning control by the eNS is through adaptation of one or the other. Here we examine two adaptive control architectures, one based only on the inverse model and other based on a combination of forward and inverse models. We then show that for reaching movements of the hand in novel force fields, only the learning of the forward model results in key characteristics of performance that match the kinematics of human subjects. In contrast, the adaptive control system that relies only on the inverse model fails to produce the kinematic patterns observed in the subjects, despite the fact that it is more stable.

Experiments were performed to reveal some of the computational properties of the human motor memory system. We show that as humans practice reaching movements while interacting with a novel mechanical environment, they learn an internal model of the inverse dynamics of that environment. The representation of the internal model in memory is such that there is interference when there is an attempt to learn a new inverse dynamics map immediately after an anticorrelated mapping was learned. We suggest that this interference is an indication that the same computational elements used to encode the first inverse dynamics map are being used to learn the second mapping. We predict that this leads to a forgetting of the initially learned skill. 1 Introduction In tasks where we use our hands to interact with a tool, our motor system develops a model of the dynamics of that tool and uses this model to control the coupled dynamics of our arm and the tool (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994). In physical systems theory, the tool is a mechanical analogue of an admittance, mapping a force as input onto a change in state as output (Hogan 1985).

Experiments were performed to reveal some of the computational properties of the human motor memory system. We show that as humans practice reaching movements while interacting with a novel mechanical environment, they learn an internal model of the inverse dynamics of that environment. The representation of the internal model in memory is such that there is interference when there is an attempt to learn a new inverse dynamics map immediately after an anticorrelated mapping was learned. We suggest that this interference is an indication that the same computational elements used to encode the first inverse dynamics map are being used to learn the second mapping. We predict that this leads to a forgetting of the initially learned skill. 1 Introduction In tasks where we use our hands to interact with a tool, our motor system develops a model of the dynamics of that tool and uses this model to control the coupled dynamics of our arm and the tool (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994). In physical systems theory, the tool is a mechanical analogue of an admittance, mapping a force as input onto a change in state as output (Hogan 1985).

Biological sensorimotor systems are not static maps that transform input (sensory information) into output (motor behavior). Evidence frommany lines of research suggests that their representations are plastic, experience-dependent entities. While this plasticity is essential for flexible behavior, it presents the nervous system with difficult organizational challenges. If the sensorimotor system adapts itself to perform well under one set of circumstances, will it then perform poorly when placed in an environment with different demands (negative transfer)? Will a later experience-dependent change undo the benefits of previous learning (catastrophic interference)?

Experiments were performed to reveal some of the computational properties of the human motor memory system. We show that as humans practice reaching movements while interacting with a novel mechanical environment, they learn an internal model of the inverse dynamics of that environment. The representation of the internal model in memory is such that there is interference when there is an attempt to learn a new inverse dynamics map immediately after an anticorrelated mapping was learned. We suggest that this interference is an indication that the same computational elements used to encode the first inverse dynamics map are being used to learn the second mapping. We predict that this leads to a forgetting of the initially learned skill. 1 Introduction In tasks where we use our hands to interact with a tool, our motor system develops a model of the dynamics of that tool and uses this model to control the coupled dynamics of our arm and the tool (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi 1994).