Biological sensorimotor systems are not static maps that transform input (sensory information) into output (motor behavior). Evidence from many 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)?

We consider the problem of how the CNS learns to control dynamics of a mechanical system. By using a paradigm where a subject's hand interacts with a virtual mechanical environment, we show that learning control is via composition of a model of the imposed dynamics. Some properties of the computational elements with which the CNS composes this model are inferred through the generalization capabilities of the subject outside the training data.

We consider the problem of how the CNS learns to control dynamics ofa mechanical system. By using a paradigm where a subject's hand interacts with a virtual mechanical environment, we show that learning control is via composition of a model of the imposed dynamics. Some properties of the computational elements with which the CNS composes this model are inferred through the generalization capabilitiesof the subject outside the training data. 1 Introduction At about the age of three months, children become interested in tactile exploration of objects around them. They attempt to reach for an object, but often fail to properly control their arm and end up missing their target. In the ensuing weeks, they rapidly improve and soon they can not only reach accurately, they can also pick up the object and place it.