The characteristics of goal-directed actions tend to resemble those of previously executed actions, but it is unclear whether such effects depend strictly on action history, or also reflect context-dependent processes related to predictive motor planning. Here we manipulated the time available to initiate movements after a target was specified, and studied the effects of predictable movement sequences, to systematically dissociate effects of the most recently executed movement from the movement required next. We found that directional biases due to recent movement history strongly depend upon movement preparation time, suggesting an important contribution from predictive planning. However predictive biases co-exist with an independent source of bias that depends only on recent movement history. The results indicate that past experience influences movement execution through a combination of temporally-stable processes that are strictly use-dependent, and dynamically-evolving and context-dependent processes that reflect prediction of future actions.

Learned compensations for perturbed visual feedback of movement extent and direction generalize differently to unpracticed movement directions, which suggests different underlying neural mechanisms. Here we investigated whether gain and rotation adaptations are consistent with representation in different coordinate systems. Subjects performed a force-aiming task with the wrist and learned different gains or rotations for different force directions. Generalization was tested without visual feedback for the same extrinsic directions but with the forearm in a different pronation-supination orientation. When the change in forearm orientation caused the adapted visuomotor map to conflict in extrinsic and joint-based coordinates, rotation generalization occurred in extrinsic coordinates but with reduced magnitude. In contrast, gain generalization appeared reduced and phase shifted. When the forearm was rotated further, such that all imposed perturbations aligned in both joint-based and extrinsic coordinates in both postures, rotation generalization was further reduced, whereas there was neither reduction nor phase shift in the pattern of extent generalization. These results show that rotation generalization was expressed in extrinsic coordinates, and that generalization magnitude was modulated by posture. In contrast, gain generalization appeared to depend on target direction defined by an integrated combination of extrinsic and joint-based coordinates and was not reduced substantially by posture changes alone. Although the quality of the model fit underlying our interpretation prevents us from making strong conclusions, the data suggest that adaptations of movement direction and extent are represented according to distinct coordinate systems. Visuomotor gain and rotation adaptations generalize differently to novel movement directions, which suggests different neural mechanisms. When extrinsic and joint-based coordinates are effectively dissociated in an isometric aiming task, we find that they also generalize in different coordinate systems. Specifically, rotation generalized in extrinsic coordinates and decayed as posture departed from that adopted during adaptation. In contrast, gain generalization was expressed according to mixed extrinsic/joint-based coordinates and was not substantially reduced by postural changes.

Insights into the neural representation of motor learning can be obtained by investigating how learning transfers to novel task conditions. We recently demonstrated that visuomotor rotation learning transferred strongly between left and right limbs when the task was performed in a sagittal workspace, which afforded a consistent remapping for the two limbs in both extrinsic and joint-based coordinates. In contrast, transfer was absent when performed in horizontal workspace, where the extrinsically defined perturbation required conflicting joint-based remapping for the left and right limbs. Because visuomotor learning is thought to be supported by both implicit and explicit forms of learning, however, it is unclear to what extent these distinct forms of learning contribute to interlimb transfer. In this study, we assessed the degree to which interlimb transfer, following visuomotor rotation training, reflects explicit vs. implicit learning by obtaining verbal reports of participants' aiming direction before each movement. We also determined the extent to which these distinct components of learning are constrained by the compatibility of coordinate systems by comparing transfer between groups of participants who reached to targets arranged in the horizontal and sagittal planes. Both sagittal and horizontal conditions displayed complete transfer of explicit learning to the untrained limb. In contrast, transfer of implicit learning was incomplete, but the sagittal condition showed greater transfer than the horizontal condition. These findings suggest that explicit strategies developed with one limb can be fully implemented in the opposite limb, whereas implicit transfer depends on the degree to which new sensorimotor maps are spatially compatible for the two limbs.

Humans can learn to make accurate movements when the required map between vision and motor commands changes, but can visuomotor maps obtained through experience with one limb benefit the other? Complete transfer would require new maps to be both fully compatible and accessible between limbs. However, when this question is addressed by providing subjects with rotated visual feedback during reaching, transfer is rarely apparent in the first few trials with the unpracticed limb and is sometimes absent altogether. Partial transfer might be explained by limited accessibility to remapped brain circuits, since critical visuomotor transformations mediating unilateral movements appear to be lateralized. Alternatively, if adaptation involves movement representations associated with both extrinsic (i.e., direction of motion in space) and intrinsic (i.e., joint or muscle based) frames of reference, new visuomotor maps might be incompatible with opposite limb use when visual distortions have opposite effects for the two limbs in intrinsic coordinates. Here we addressed this issue when subjects performed an isometric aiming task with the index finger. We manipulated the alignment of visuomotor distortion for the two hands in different reference frames by altering body posture relative to the orientation of the finger and the visual display. There was strong, immediate transfer of adaptation between limbs only when visuomotor distortion had identical effects in eye- and joint-based coordinates bilaterally. This implies that new visuomotor maps are encoded in neural circuits associated with both intrinsic and extrinsic movement representations and are available to both limbs.

AIM: In previous studies, unilateral ballistic training either increased or decreased corticospinal excitability for the untrained opposite limb. The objective here was to investigate whether these discrepancies can be explained by methodological differences such as the intensity of stimulation assessing excitability or the timing of excitability testing after training. METHODS: Motor evoked potentials (MEP) were elicited by stimulating the ipsilateral cortex at high intensity (70% MEPmax) and low intensity (20% MEPmax) at specific time-points after performance of 300 ballistic movements of the index finger. RESULTS: Ballistic practice significantly facilitated MEP size for high-intensity stimuli, whereas responses to low-intensity stimulation were variable. MEP sizes at individual time-points were not significantly facilitated until 4 min after training, although there was no difference between early and late responses when grouped over multiple time-points. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that previous discrepancies in ipsilateral responses to ballistic training cannot be attributed to specific procedures used to assess corticospinal excitability as there was no tendency towards depression of MEP amplitude at any point post-exercise for both testing intensities. This suggests that other experimental factors such as locus of attention or availability of visual feedback are more likely to account for the discrepancies.