Motor Learning Driven by Sensory Prediction Errors is Insensitive to Task Performance Feedback

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
Full text 1,860 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Accurate motor behavior relies on our ability to refine movements based on errors. While sensory prediction errors (SPEs), mismatches between expected and actual sensory feedback, predominantly drive such adaptation, task performance errors (TPEs), or failures in achieving movement goals, also appear to contribute. However, whether and how TPEs interact with SPEs to shape net learning, remains controversial. This controversy stems from difficulties in experimentally decorrelating these errors, ambiguity related to possible interpretations of task instructions, and inconsistencies between theory and computational models. To try and resolve this issue, we employed variants of an “error-clamp” adaptation paradigm across four reaching experiments (N = 144). Addressing the ambiguity of whether or not the TPE is indeed ignored in standard error-clamp designs as assumed in theoretical (but not computational) models, Experiment 1 explicitly manipulated TPE magnitude by shifting the endpoint feedback location while holding SPE constant. We found that learning was uninfluenced by TPE size. Experiment 2 assumed that the TPE is in fact disregarded under clamp instructions. To then study SPE-TPE interactions, we induced TPEs of varying magnitudes by shifting the target location (“target jump”) while always clamping feedback to the original target location. Here, instructions to reach the new target also induced an SPE. Crucially, learning driven by this SPE was again unaffected by TPE magnitude, a result validated by two additional experiments. Our findings consistently demonstrate that SPE-mediated learning remains impervious to variations in task performance feedback, and point to a distinction in learning mechanisms triggered by these two error signals. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00