Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Multiple motor memories are learned to control different points on a tool

Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 300–311 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Skilful object manipulation requires learning the dynamics of objects, linking applied force to motion1,2. This involves the formation of a motor memory3,4, which has been assumed to be associated with the object, independent of the point on the object that one chooses to control. Importantly, in manipulation tasks, different control points on an object, such as the rim of a cup when drinking or its base when setting it down, can be associated with distinct dynamics. Here, we show that opposing dynamic perturbations, which interfere when controlling a single location on an object, can be learned when each is associated with a separate control point. This demonstrates that motor memory formation is linked to control points on the object, rather than the object per se. We also show that the motor system only generates separate memories for different control points if they are linked to different dynamics, allowing efficient use of motor memory. To account for these results, we develop a normative switching state-space model of motor learning, in which the association between cues (control points) and contexts (dynamics) is learned rather than fixed. Our findings uncover an important mechanism through which the motor system generates flexible and dexterous behaviour.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Separate motor memories are formed for different control points.
Fig. 2: Control points are represented in an object-centred frame of reference.
Fig. 3: The encoding of dynamics for different control points depends on the fields experienced.
Fig. 4: Learning to associate contexts with cues in the SSSM.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shadmehr, R., Smith, M. A. & Krakauer, J. W. Error correction, sensory prediction, and adaptation in motor control. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 33, 89–108 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J. & Flanagan, J. R. Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12, 739–751 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Johansson, R. S. & Westling, G. Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher or more slippery objects. Exp. Brain Res. 56, 550–564 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Johansson, R. S. & Flanagan, J. R. Coding and use of tactile signals from the fingertips in object manipulation tasks. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 10, 345–359 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ingram, J. N. & Wolpert, D. M. Naturalistic approaches to sensorimotor control. Prog. Brain Res. 191, 3–29 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Westling, G. & Johansson, R. S. Factors influencing the force control during precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 53, 277–284 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johansson, R. S. & Westling, G. Coordinated isometric muscle commands adequately and erroneously programmed for the weight during lifting task with precision grip. Exp. Brain Res. 71, 59–71 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gordon, A. M., Westling, G., Cole, K. J. & Johansson, R. S. Memory representations underlying motor commands used during manipulation of common and novel objects. J. Neurophysiol. 69, 1789–1796 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flanagan, J. R. & Beltzner, M. A. Independence of perceptual and sensorimotor predictions in the size–weight illusion. Nat. Neurosci. 3, 737–741 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baugh, L. A., Kao, M., Johansson, R. S. & Flanagan, J. R. Material evidence: interaction of well-learned priors and sensorimotor memory when lifting objects. J. Neurophysiol. 108, 1262–1269 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Flanagan, J. R., Bowman, M. C. & Johansson, R. S. Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16, 650–659 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fu, Q. & Santello, M. Context-dependent learning interferes with visuomotor transformations for manipulation planning. J. Neurosci. 32, 15086–15092 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fu, Q. & Santello, M. Retention and interference of learned dexterous manipulation: interaction between multiple sensorimotor processes. J. Neurophysiol. 113, 144–155 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolpert, D. M. & Flanagan, J. R. Q&A: robotics as a tool to understand the brain. BMC Biol. 8, 92 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shadmehr, R. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J. Neurosci. 14, 3208–3224 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dingwell, J. B., Mah, C. D. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Manipulating objects with internal degrees of freedom: evidence for model-based control. J. Neurophysiol. 88, 222–235 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dingwell, J. B., Mah, C. D. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Experimentally confirmed mathematical model for human control of a non-rigid object. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 1158–1170 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nagengast, A. J., Braun, D. A. & Wolpert, D. M. Optimal control predicts human performance on objects with internal degrees of freedom. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000419 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Nasseroleslami, B., Hasson, C. J. & Sternad, D. Rhythmic manipulation of objects with complex dynamics: predictability over chaos. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003900 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Flanagan, J. R. & Wing, A. M. The role of internal models in motion planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during movements of hand-held loads. J. Neurosci. 17, 1519–1528 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahmed, A. A., Wolpert, D. M. & Flanagan, J. R. Flexible representations of dynamics are used in object manipulation. Curr. Biol. 18, 763–768 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Danion, F., Diamond, J. S. & Flanagan, J. R. The role of haptic feedback when manipulating nonrigid objects. J. Neurophysiol. 107, 433–441 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sheahan, H. R., Franklin, D. W. & Wolpert, D. M. Motor planning, not execution, separates motor memories. Neuron 92, 773–779 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Smith, M. A., Ghazizadeh, A. & Shadmehr, R. Interacting adaptive processes with different timescales underlie short-term motor learning. PLoS Biol. 4, e179 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheidt, R. A., Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Colborn, M. A., Rymer, W. Z. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Persistence of motor adaptation during constrained, multi-joint, arm movements. J. Neurophysiol. 84, 853–862 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cothros, N., Wong, J. D. & Gribble, P. L. Are there distinct neural representations of object and limb dynamics? Exp. Brain Res. 173, 689–697 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kluzik, J., Diedrichsen, J., Shadmehr, R. & Bastian, A. J. Reach adaptation: what determines whether we learn an internal model of the tool or adapt the model of our arm? J. Neurophysiol. 100, 1455–1464 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Gandolfo, F., Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. & Bizzi, E. Motor learning by field approximation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 3843–3846 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Howard, I. S., Wolpert, D. M. & Franklin, D. W. The effect of contextual cues on the encoding of motor memories. J. Neurophysiol. 109, 2632–2644 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Salimi, I., Hollender, I., Frazier, W. & Gordon, A. M. Specificity of internal representations underlying grasping. J. Neurophysiol. 84, 2390–2397 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bursztyn, L. L. & Flanagan, J. R. Sensorimotor memory of weight asymmetry in object manipulation. Exp. Brain Res. 184, 127–133 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ingram, J. N., Howard, I. S., Flanagan, J. R. & Wolpert, D. M. Multiple grasp-specific representations of tool dynamics mediate skillful manipulation. Curr. Biol. 20, 618–623 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ingram, J. N., Howard, I. S., Flanagan, J. R. & Wolpert, D. M. A single-rate context-dependent learning process underlies rapid adaptation to familiar object dynamics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002196 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ingram, J. N., Flanagan, J. R. & Wolpert, D. M. Context-dependent decay of motor memories during skill acquisition. Curr. Biol. 23, 1107–1112 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Milner, T. E. & Franklin, D. W. Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans. J. Physiol. 567, 651–664 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Howard, I. S., Ingram, J. N., Franklin, D. W. & Wolpert, D. M. Gone in 0.6 seconds: the encoding of motor memories depends on recent sensorimotor states. J. Neurosci. 32, 12756–12768 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Berniker, M., Franklin, D. W., Flanagan, J. R., Wolpert, D. M. & Kording, K. Motor learning of novel dynamics is not represented in a single global coordinate system: evaluation of mixed coordinate representations and local learning. J. Neurophysiol. 111, 1165–1182 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nozaki, D. & Scott, S. H. Multi-compartment model can explain partial transfer of learning within the same limb between unimanual and bimanual reaching. Exp. Brain Res. 194, 451–463 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee, J. Y. & Schweighofer, N. Dual adaptation supports a parallel architecture of motor memory. J. Neurosci. 29, 10396–10404 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, S., Oh, Y. & Schweighofer, N. Between-trial forgetting due to interference and time in motor adaptation. PLoS ONE 10, e0142963 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thoroughman, K. A. & Shadmehr, R. Learning of action through adaptive combination of motor primitives. Nature 407, 742–747 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Trewartha, K. M., Garcia, A., Wolpert, D. M. & Flanagan, J. R. Fast but fleeting: adaptive motor learning processes associated with aging and cognitive decline. J. Neurosci. 34, 13411–13421 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ackerson, G. & Fu, K. On state estimation in switching environments. IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. 15, 10–17 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chang, C. B. & Athans, M. State estimation for discrete systems with switching parameters. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 14, 418–425 (1978).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Shumway, R. H. & Stoffer, D. S. Dynamic linear models with switching. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 86, 763–769 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Howard, I. S., Wolpert, D. M. & Franklin, D. W. The value of the follow-through derives from motor learning depending on future actions. Curr. Biol. 25, 397–401 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nozaki, D., Kurtzer, I. & Scott, S. H. Limited transfer of learning between unimanual and bimanual skills within the same limb. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 1364–1366 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yokoi, A., Hirashima, M. & Nozaki, D. Gain field encoding of the kinematics of both arms in the internal model enables flexible bimanual action. J. Neurosci. 31, 17058–17068 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Richter, S., Jansen-Osmann, P., Konczak, J. & Kalveram, K.-T. Motor adaptation to different dynamic environments is facilitated by indicative context stimuli. Psychol. Res. 68, 245–251 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Yeo, S.-H., Wolpert, D. M. & Franklin, D. W. Coordinate representations for interference reduction in motor learning. PLoS ONE 10, e0129388 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hwang, E. J., Smith, M. A. & Shadmehr, R. Dissociable effects of the implicit and explicit memory systems on learning control of reaching. Exp. Brain Res. 173, 425–437 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Hirashima, M. & Nozaki, D. Distinct motor plans form and retrieve distinct motor memories for physically identical movements. Curr. Biol. 22, 432–436 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chib, V. S., Krutky, M. A., Lynch, K. M. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. The separate neural control of hand movements and contact forces. J. Neurosci. 29, 3939–3947 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Casadio, M., Pressman, A. & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. Learning to push and learning to move: the adaptive control of contact forces. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 9, 118 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M. & Iwamura, Y. Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurones. Neuroreport 7, 2325–2330 (1996).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yamamoto, S. & Kitazawa, S. Sensation at the tips of invisible tools. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 979–980 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Farnè, A., Iriki, A. & Làdavas, E. Shaping multisensory action–space with tools: evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia 43, 238–248 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R. & Epstein, W. Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 31, 880–888 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Haggard, P. W. & Wolpert, D. M. in Higher-Order Motor Disorders Ch. 14 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2004).

  60. Benton, A. L. Right–Left Discrimination and Finger Localization: Development and Pathology (Hoeber-Harper, New York, NY, 1959).

  61. Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J. & Hinton, G. E. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Comput. 3, 79–87 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wolpert, D. M. & Kawato, M. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw. 11, 1317–1329 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ghahramani, Z. & Hinton, G. E. Variational learning for switching state-space models. Neural Comput. 12, 831–864 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Baddeley, R. J., Ingram, H. A. & Miall, R. C. System identification applied to a visuomotor task: near-optimal human performance in a noisy changing task. J. Neurosci. 23, 3066–3075 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Burge, J., Ernst, M. O. & Banks, M. S. The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching. J. Vis. 8, 20.1–20.19 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zarahn, E., Weston, G. D., Liang, J., Mazzoni, P. & Krakauer, J. W. Explaining savings for visuomotor adaptation: linear time-invariant state-space models are not sufficient. J. Neurophysiol. 100, 2537–2548 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Huang, V. S. & Shadmehr, R. Persistence of motor memories reflects statistics of the learning event. J. Neurophysiol. 102, 931–940 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Fox, E., Sudderth, E. B., Jordan, M. I. & Willsky, A. S. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21 (eds Koller, D., Schuurmans, D., Bengio, Y. & Bottou, L.) 457–464 (Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY, 2009).

  69. Oldfield, R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97–113 (1971).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Howard, I. S., Ingram, J. N. & Wolpert, D. M. A modular planar robotic manipulandum with end-point torque control. J. Neurosci. Methods 181, 199–211 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ingram, J. N., Sadeghi, M., Flanagan, J. R. & Wolpert, D. M. An error-tuned model for sensorimotor learning. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005883 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Land, M. F. & Furneaux, S. The knowledge base of the oculomotor system. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 352, 1231–1239 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Johansson, R. S., Westling, G., Backstrom, A. & Flanagan, J. R. Eye–hand coordination in object manipulation. J. Neurosci. 21, 6917–6932 (2001).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Land, M. F., Mennie, N. & Rusted, J. Eye movements and the roles of vision in activities of daily living: making a cup of tea. Perception 28, 1311–1328 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Doucet, A., Gordon, N. J. & Kroshnamurthy, V. Particle filters for state estimation of jump Markov linear systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 49, 613–624 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Bar-Shalom, Y., Rong Li, X. & Kirubarajan, T. Estimation with Applications to Tracking and Navigation (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2001).

  77. Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M. & Rubin, D. B. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 39, 1–38 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cappé, O. & Moulines E. On‐line expectation-maximization algorithm for latent data models. J. R. Stat. Soc. 71, 593–613 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Cappé, O. Online EM algorithm for hidden Markov models. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 20, 728–749 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. George, A. P. & Powell, W. B. Adaptive stepsizes for recursive estimation with applications in approximate dynamic programming. Mach. Learn. 65, 167–198 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Robbins, H. & Monro, S. A stochastic approximation method. Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 400–407 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Del Moral, P., Doucet, A. & Singh, S. Forward smoothing using sequential Monte Carlo. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5390 (2010).

  83. Özkan, E., Lindsten, F., Fritsche, C. & Gustafsson, F. Recursive maximum likelihood identification of jump Markov nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 63, 754–765 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Kalman, R. E. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. J. Basic Eng. 82, 35–45 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Kass, R. E. & Raftery, A. E. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 773–795 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Jeffreys, H. The Theory of Probability (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1998).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank G. Žalalytė and A. Pantelides for assistance with the experiments, and S. Singh for advice on the model. We thank the Wellcome Trust, Royal Society (Noreen Murray Professorship in Neurobiology to D.M.W.), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Canadian Institutes of Health Research for support. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational and Biological Learning Laboratory, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    James B. Heald, James N. Ingram & Daniel M. Wolpert

  2. Center for Neuroscience Studies and Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

    J. Randall Flanagan

Authors
  1. James B. Heald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James N. Ingram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Randall Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel M. Wolpert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived and designed the experiments. J.B.H. performed the experiments, and developed and fit the SSSM. All authors wrote the paper, discussed the results and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James B. Heald.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Tables and Supplementary References

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heald, J.B., Ingram, J.N., Flanagan, J.R. et al. Multiple motor memories are learned to control different points on a tool. Nat Hum Behav 2, 300–311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0324-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0324-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing