4.5 Article

Motor sequence learning occurs despite disrupted visual and proprioceptive feedback

期刊

BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN FUNCTIONS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1744-9081-4-32

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kansas Partners in Progress, Inc.
  2. Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute and Foundation
  3. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  4. North Growth Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Recent work has demonstrated the importance of proprioception for the development of internal representations of the forces encountered during a task. Evidence also exists for a significant role for proprioception in the execution of sequential movements. However, little work has explored the role of proprioceptive sensation during the learning of continuous movement sequences. Here, we report that the repeated segment of a continuous tracking task can be learned despite peripherally altered arm proprioception and severely restricted visual feedback regarding motor output. Methods: Healthy adults practiced a continuous tracking task over 2 days. Half of the participants experienced vibration that altered proprioception of shoulder flexion/extension of the active tracking arm ( experimental condition) and half experienced vibration of the passive resting arm ( control condition). Visual feedback was restricted for all participants. Retention testing was conducted on a separate day to assess motor learning. Results: Regardless of vibration condition, participants learned the repeated segment demonstrated by significant improvements in accuracy for tracking repeated as compared to random continuous movement sequences. Conclusion: These results suggest that with practice, participants were able to use residual afferent information to overcome initial interference of tracking ability related to altered proprioception and restricted visual feedback to learn a continuous motor sequence. Motor learning occurred despite an initial interference of tracking noted during acquisition practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据