Robert J. van Beers

When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation

Perception and action are based on information from multiple sensory modalities. For instance, both vision and proprioception provide information about hand position, and this information is integrated to generate a single estimate of where the hand is in space. Classically, vision has been thought to dominate this process, with the estimate of hand position relying more on vision than on proprioception. However, an optimal integration model that takes into account the precision of vision and proprioception predicts that the weighting of the two senses varies with direction and that the classical result should only hold for specific spatial directions. Using an adaptation paradigm, we show that, as predicted by this model, the visual-proprioceptive integration varies with direction. Variation with direction was so strong that, in the depth direction, the classical result was reversed: the estimate relies more on proprioception than on vision. These results provide evidence for statistically optimal integration of information from multiple modalities.

Motor Learning Is Optimally Tuned to the Properties of Motor Noise

In motor learning, our brain uses movement errors to adjust planning of future movements. This process has traditionally been studied by examining how motor planning is adjusted in response to visuomotor or dynamic perturbations. Here, I show that the learning strategy can be better identified from the statistics of movements made in the absence of perturbations. The strategy identified this way differs from the learning mechanism assumed in mainstream models for motor learning. Crucial for this strategy is that motor noise arises partly centrally, in movement planning, and partly peripherally, in movement execution. Corrections are made by modification of central planning signals from the previous movement, which include the effects of planning but not execution noise. The size of the corrections is such that the movement variability is minimized. This physiologically plausible strategy is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise, and likely underlies learning in many motor tasks.In motor learning, our brain uses movement errors to adjust planning of future movements. This process has traditionally been studied by examining how motor planning is adjusted in response to visuomotor or dynamic perturbations. Here, I show that the learning strategy can be better identified from the statistics of movements made in the absence of perturbations. The strategy identified this way differs from the learning mechanism assumed in mainstream models for motor learning. Crucial for this strategy is that motor noise arises partly centrally, in movement planning, and partly peripherally, in movement execution. Corrections are made by modification of central planning signals from the previous movement, which include the effects of planning but not execution noise. The size of the corrections is such that the movement variability is minimized. This physiologically plausible strategy is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise, and likely underlies learning in many motor tasks.

The Sources of Variability in Saccadic Eye Movements

Our movements are variable, but the origin of this variability is poorly understood. We examined the sources of variability in human saccadic eye movements. In two experiments, we measured the spatiotemporal variability in saccade trajectories as a function of movement direction and amplitude. One of our new observations is that the variability in movement direction is smaller for purely horizontal and vertical saccades than for saccades in oblique directions. We also found that saccade amplitude, duration, and peak velocity are all correlated with one another. To determine the origin of the observed variability, we estimated the noise in motor commands from the observed spatiotemporal variability, while taking into account the variability resulting from uncertainty in localization of the target. This analysis revealed that uncertainty in target localization is the major source of variability in saccade endpoints, whereas noise in the magnitude of the motor commands explains a slightly smaller fraction. In addition, there is temporal variability such that saccades with a longer than average duration have a smaller than average peak velocity. This noise model has a large generality because it correctly predicts the variability in other data sets, which contain saccades starting from very different initial locations. Because the temporal noise most likely originates in movement planning, and the motor command noise in movement execution, we conclude that uncertainty in sensory signals and noise in movement planning and execution all contribute to the variability in saccade trajectories. These results are important for understanding how the brain controls movement.Our movements are variable, but the origin of this variability is poorly understood. We examined the sources of variability in human saccadic eye movements. In two experiments, we measured the spatiotemporal variability in saccade trajectories as a function of movement direction and amplitude. One of our new observations is that the variability in movement direction is smaller for purely horizontal and vertical saccades than for saccades in oblique directions. We also found that saccade amplitude, duration, and peak velocity are all correlated with one another. To determine the origin of the observed variability, we estimated the noise in motor commands from the observed spatiotemporal variability, while taking into account the variability resulting from uncertainty in localization of the target. This analysis revealed that uncertainty in target localization is the major source of variability in saccade endpoints, whereas noise in the magnitude of the motor commands explains a slightly smaller fraction. In addition, there is temporal variability such that saccades with a longer than average duration have a smaller than average peak velocity. This noise model has a large generality because it correctly predicts the variability in other data sets, which contain saccades starting from very different initial locations. Because the temporal noise most likely originates in movement planning, and the motor command noise in movement execution, we conclude that uncertainty in sensory signals and noise in movement planning and execution all contribute to the variability in saccade trajectories. These results are important for understanding how the brain controls movement.

Random walk of motor planning in task-irrelevant dimensions

The movements that we make are variable. It is well established that at least a part of this variability is caused by noise in central motor planning. Here, we studied how the random effects of planning noise translate into changes in motor planning. Are the random effects independently added to a constant mean end point, or do they accumulate over movements? To distinguish between these possibilities, we examined repeated, discrete movements in various tasks in which the motor output could be decomposed into a task-relevant and a task-irrelevant component. We found in all tasks that the task-irrelevant component had a positive lag 1 autocorrelation, suggesting that the random effects of planning noise accumulate over movements. In contrast, the task-relevant component always had a lag 1 autocorrelation close to zero, which can be explained by effective trial-by-trial correction of motor planning on the basis of observed motor errors. Accumulation of the effects of planning noise is consistent with current insights into the stochastic nature of synaptic plasticity. It leads to motor exploration, which may subserve motor learning and performance optimization.

Saccadic Eye Movements Minimize the Consequences of Motor Noise

The durations and trajectories of our saccadic eye movements are remarkably stereotyped. We have no voluntary control over these properties but they are determined by the movement amplitude and, to a smaller extent, also by the movement direction and initial eye orientation. Here we show that the stereotyped durations and trajectories are optimal for minimizing the variability in saccade endpoints that is caused by motor noise. The optimal duration can be understood from the nature of the motor noise, which is a combination of signal-dependent noise favoring long durations, and constant noise, which prefers short durations. The different durations of horizontal vs. vertical and of centripetal vs. centrifugal saccades, and the somewhat surprising properties of saccades in oblique directions are also accurately predicted by the principle of minimizing movement variability. The simple and sensible principle of minimizing the consequences of motor noise thus explains the full stereotypy of saccadic eye movements. This suggests that saccades are so stereotyped because that is the best strategy to minimize movement errors for an open-loop motor system.

How Does Our Motor System Determine Its Learning Rate

Motor learning is driven by movement errors. The speed of learning can be quantified by the learning rate, which is the proportion of an error that is corrected for in the planning of the next movement. Previous studies have shown that the learning rate depends on the reliability of the error signal and on the uncertainty of the motor system’s own state. These dependences are in agreement with the predictions of the Kalman filter, which is a state estimator that can be used to determine the optimal learning rate for each movement such that the expected movement error is minimized. Here we test whether not only the average behaviour is optimal, as the previous studies showed, but if the learning rate is chosen optimally in every individual movement. Subjects made repeated movements to visual targets with their unseen hand. They received visual feedback about their endpoint error immediately after each movement. The reliability of these error-signals was varied across three conditions. The results are inconsistent with the predictions of the Kalman filter because correction for large errors in the beginning of a series of movements to a fixed target was not as fast as predicted and the learning rates for the extent and the direction of the movements did not differ in the way predicted by the Kalman filter. Instead, a simpler model that uses the same learning rate for all movements with the same error-signal reliability can explain the data. We conclude that our brain does not apply state estimation to determine the optimal planning correction for every individual movement, but it employs a simpler strategy of using a fixed learning rate for all movements with the same level of error-signal reliability.

Reweighting visual cues by touch

It is well established that if multiple cues provide information about the same quantity, the information from these cues is combined by weighting each cue by the inverse of its variance. This implies that cue weights are determined by the cue variances only. However, this view is challenged by studies that showed that feedback about the actual value can induce changes in the cue weights when the feedback is consistent with one cue but not the other. We developed a paradigm that allowed us to measure the time course of this reweighting. Subjects placed an object flush onto a slanted surface. Monocular and binocular cues provided information about the slant and could be inconsistent with one another. Subjects received haptic feedback about whether they had oriented the object correctly when the object contacted the surface. This feedback was consistent with either the monocular or the binocular information. We found that the weight given to the visual cue that was consistent with the feedback increased relatively fast, leading to a mean weight change of 0.18 after 52 conflict trials. Thus, unless the haptic feedback somehow influences the reliability of the individual visual cues, the cue weights are not fully determined by the cue variances but also depend on the accuracy of each cue.

What autocorrelation tells us about motor variability: Insights from dart throwing

In sports such as golf and darts it is important that one can produce ballistic movements of an object towards a goal location with as little variability as possible. A factor that influences this variability is the extent to which motor planning is updated from movement to movement based on observed errors. Previous work has shown that for reaching movements, our motor system uses the learning rate (the proportion of an error that is corrected for in the planning of the next movement) that is optimal for minimizing the endpoint variability. Here we examined whether the learning rate is hard-wired and therefore automatically optimal, or whether it is optimized through experience. We compared the performance of experienced dart players and beginners in a dart task. A hallmark of the optimal learning rate is that the lag-1 autocorrelation of movement endpoints is zero. We found that the lag-1 autocorrelation of experienced dart players was near zero, implying a near-optimal learning rate, whereas it was negative for beginners, suggesting a larger than optimal learning rate. We conclude that learning rates for trial-by-trial motor learning are optimized through experience. This study also highlights the usefulness of the lag-1 autocorrelation as an index of performance in studying motor-skill learning.

How the Statistics of Sequential Presentation Influence the Learning of Structure

Recent work has shown that humans can learn or detect complex dependencies among variables. Even learning a simple dependency involves the identification of an underlying model and the learning of its parameters. This process represents learning a structured problem. We are interested in an empirical assessment of some of the factors that enable humans to learn such a dependency over time. More specifically, we look at how the statistics of the presentation of samples from a given structure influence learning. Participants engage in an experimental task where they are required to predict the timing of a target. At the outset, they are oblivious to the existence of a relationship between the position of a stimulus and the required temporal response to intercept it. Different groups of participants are either presented with a Random Walk where consecutive stimuli were correlated or with stimuli that were uncorrelated over time. We find that the structural relationship implicit in the task is only learned in the conditions where the stimuli are independently drawn. This leads us to believe that humans require rich and independent sampling to learn hidden structures among variables.

Visuomotor adaptation: how forgetting keeps us conservative

Even when provided with feedback after every movement, adaptation levels off before biases are completely removed. Incomplete adaptation has recently been attributed to forgetting: the adaptation is already partially forgotten by the time the next movement is made. Here we test whether this idea is correct. If so, the final level of adaptation is determined by a balance between learning and forgetting. Because we learn from perceived errors, scaling these errors by a magnification factor has the same effect as subjects increasing the amount by which they learn from each error. In contrast, there is no reason to expect scaling the errors to affect forgetting. The magnification factor should therefore influence the balance between learning and forgetting, and thereby the final level of adaptation. We found that adaptation was indeed more complete for larger magnification factors. This supports the idea that incomplete adaptation is caused by part of what has been learnt quickly being forgotten.