Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Standard

Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals. / Lundbye-Jensen, Jesper; Petersen, Tue Hvass; Rothwell, John C; Nielsen, Jens Bo.

I: P L o S One, Bind 6, Nr. 3, 2011, s. e17451 (1-15).

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Lundbye-Jensen, J, Petersen, TH, Rothwell, JC & Nielsen, JB 2011, 'Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals', P L o S One, bind 6, nr. 3, s. e17451 (1-15). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017451

APA

Lundbye-Jensen, J., Petersen, T. H., Rothwell, J. C., & Nielsen, J. B. (2011). Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals. P L o S One, 6(3), e17451 (1-15). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017451

Vancouver

Lundbye-Jensen J, Petersen TH, Rothwell JC, Nielsen JB. Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals. P L o S One. 2011;6(3):e17451 (1-15). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017451

Author

Lundbye-Jensen, Jesper ; Petersen, Tue Hvass ; Rothwell, John C ; Nielsen, Jens Bo. / Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals. I: P L o S One. 2011 ; Bind 6, Nr. 3. s. e17451 (1-15).

Bibtex

@article{3d741fd1bbfd427eba364beec95b14fb,
title = "Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals",
abstract = "Humans are capable of learning numerous motor skills, but newly acquired skills may be abolished by subsequent learning. Here we ask what factors determine whether interference occurs in motor learning. We speculated that interference requires competing processes of synaptic plasticity in overlapping circuits and predicted specificity. To test this, subjects learned a ballistic motor task. Interference was observed following subsequent learning of an accuracy-tracking task, but only if the competing task involved the same muscles and movement direction. Interference was not observed from a non-learning task suggesting that interference requires competing learning. Subsequent learning of the competing task 4 h after initial learning did not cause interference suggesting disruption of early motor memory consolidation as one possible mechanism underlying interference. Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of corticospinal motor output at intensities below movement threshold did not cause interference, whereas suprathreshold rTMS evoking motor responses and (re)afferent activation did. Finally, the experiments revealed that suprathreshold repetitive electrical stimulation of the agonist (but not antagonist) peripheral nerve caused interference. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate that peripheral nerve stimulation may cause interference. The finding underscores the importance of sensory feedback as error signals in motor learning. We conclude that interference requires competing plasticity in overlapping circuits. Interference is remarkably specific for circuits involved in a specific movement and it may relate to sensory error signals.",
author = "Jesper Lundbye-Jensen and Petersen, {Tue Hvass} and Rothwell, {John C} and Nielsen, {Jens Bo}",
note = "CURIS 2011 5200 047",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0017451",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "e17451 (1--15)",
journal = "P L o S One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interference in ballistic motor learning: specificity and role of sensory error signals

AU - Lundbye-Jensen, Jesper

AU - Petersen, Tue Hvass

AU - Rothwell, John C

AU - Nielsen, Jens Bo

N1 - CURIS 2011 5200 047

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Humans are capable of learning numerous motor skills, but newly acquired skills may be abolished by subsequent learning. Here we ask what factors determine whether interference occurs in motor learning. We speculated that interference requires competing processes of synaptic plasticity in overlapping circuits and predicted specificity. To test this, subjects learned a ballistic motor task. Interference was observed following subsequent learning of an accuracy-tracking task, but only if the competing task involved the same muscles and movement direction. Interference was not observed from a non-learning task suggesting that interference requires competing learning. Subsequent learning of the competing task 4 h after initial learning did not cause interference suggesting disruption of early motor memory consolidation as one possible mechanism underlying interference. Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of corticospinal motor output at intensities below movement threshold did not cause interference, whereas suprathreshold rTMS evoking motor responses and (re)afferent activation did. Finally, the experiments revealed that suprathreshold repetitive electrical stimulation of the agonist (but not antagonist) peripheral nerve caused interference. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate that peripheral nerve stimulation may cause interference. The finding underscores the importance of sensory feedback as error signals in motor learning. We conclude that interference requires competing plasticity in overlapping circuits. Interference is remarkably specific for circuits involved in a specific movement and it may relate to sensory error signals.

AB - Humans are capable of learning numerous motor skills, but newly acquired skills may be abolished by subsequent learning. Here we ask what factors determine whether interference occurs in motor learning. We speculated that interference requires competing processes of synaptic plasticity in overlapping circuits and predicted specificity. To test this, subjects learned a ballistic motor task. Interference was observed following subsequent learning of an accuracy-tracking task, but only if the competing task involved the same muscles and movement direction. Interference was not observed from a non-learning task suggesting that interference requires competing learning. Subsequent learning of the competing task 4 h after initial learning did not cause interference suggesting disruption of early motor memory consolidation as one possible mechanism underlying interference. Repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of corticospinal motor output at intensities below movement threshold did not cause interference, whereas suprathreshold rTMS evoking motor responses and (re)afferent activation did. Finally, the experiments revealed that suprathreshold repetitive electrical stimulation of the agonist (but not antagonist) peripheral nerve caused interference. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate that peripheral nerve stimulation may cause interference. The finding underscores the importance of sensory feedback as error signals in motor learning. We conclude that interference requires competing plasticity in overlapping circuits. Interference is remarkably specific for circuits involved in a specific movement and it may relate to sensory error signals.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0017451

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0017451

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 21408054

VL - 6

SP - e17451 (1-15)

JO - P L o S One

JF - P L o S One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 33568345