henhaobio
Sign in

PLoS ONENeurosciencePeer-reviewed journal article

Exploring Disturbance as a Force for Good in Motor Learning

Jack BrookesiD, Faisal MushtaqiD, Earle Jamieson, Aaron J. FathiD, Geoffrey P. BinghamiD, Peter CulmeriD, Richard McGilchrist WilkieiD, Mark A Mon-WilliamsiD

PDFDOIPreprint

Abstract

Disturbance forces facilitate motor learning, but theoretical explanations for this counterintuitive phenomenon are lacking. Smooth arm movements require predictions (inference) about the force-field associated with a workspace. The Free Energy Principle (FEP) suggests that such active inference is driven by surprise. We used these insights to create a formal model that explains why disturbance helps learning. In two experiments, participants undertook a continuous tracking task where they learned how to move their arm in different directions through a novel 3D force field. We compared baseline performance before and after exposure to the novel field to quantify learning. In Experiment 1, the exposure phases (but not the baseline measures) were delivered under three different conditions: (i) robot haptic assistance; (ii) no guidance; (iii) robot haptic disturbance. The disturbance group showed the best learning as our model predicted. Experiment 2 further tested our FEP inspired model. Assistive and/or disturbance forces were applied as a function of performance (low surprise), and compared to a random error manipulation (high surprise). The random group showed the most improvement as predicted by the model. Thus, motor learning can be conceptualised as a process of entropy reduction. Short term motor strategies (e.g. global impedance) can mitigate unexpected perturbations, but continuous movements require active inference about external force-fields in order to create accurate internal models of the external world (motor learning). Our findings reconcile research on the relationship between noise, variability, and motor learning, and show that information is the currency of motor learning.

Citations
12
FWCI
0.67
Field percentile
top 36%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISArink '24Schween '20Cardis '17Zhang '26Kumar '25Al-Fawakhir '26
74% semantic matchNeuroscience
Wouter Arink, Katherine L. Poggensee, Niek Beckers+2 more·IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob)·Sep 1, 2024· 1 citations