Fatigue induces long-lasting detrimental changes in motor-skill learning
- Johns Hopkins University, Maryland
- University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland
- University College London, United Kingdom
- Boston University, Massachusetts
- The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Maryland
Figures
Figure 1
Comparison of skill acquisition in an isometric pinch task between fatigued and non-fatigued participants.
Panel (A) shows changes in skill measure over the course of four training blocks on two consecutive days for both groups (NoFTG = blue; FTG = red). While both groups improved task execution, the FTG …
Figure 2
Comparison of skill execution between FTG and NoFTG over the course of four days.
Note that the FTG (red) showed lower skill levels at Day 1 and 2 compared to the NoFTG (blue) and only reached similar levels to controls at the end of Day 3 and on Day 4.
Figure 3
Intermanual transfer of learning in fatigued versus non-fatigued participants.
Panel (A) shows changes in the skill measure over the course of four blocks during one day of training (NoFTGTRANSFER = dark blue, FTGTRANSFER = dark green). Before and after the training, both …
Figure 4
Disrupting M1 at the end of Day one training reduces the impaired skill acquisition on Day 2.
Panel (A) shows changes in the skill measure over four training blocks on two consecutive days for all groups (NoFTGSHAM = blue, FTGSHAM = red, FTGM1 = green). Note that the FTGM1 experienced higher …
Figure 5
Muscle fatigue does not impair sequence learning.
Panel (A) shows changes in movement time over the course of four blocks on two consecutive days for the non-fatigued versus the fatigued group (NoFTGSEQUENCE and FTGSEQUENCE). Both groups performed …
Figure 6
Pinch force skill task and study design for experiment 1.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.008
Appendix 1—figure 1
Changes of M1 excitability in experiment 3.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.012
Appendix 1—figure 2
Fatiguing without training did not affect learning on Day 2.
Panel (A) shows changes in skill measure over the course of four blocks on two consecutive days for the non-fatigued group (NoFTGSHAM, same control group as in experiment 3) and on Day two for the …
Appendix 1—figure 3
Study design experiment 2.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.015
Appendix 1—figure 4
Study design experiment 3.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.016
Appendix 1—figure 5
Study design experiment 4.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.017
Appendix 1—figure 6
Study design control condition.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.018Tables
Appendix 1—table 1
error rate experiment 3.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.011| Group | Day 1 | Day 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | |
| NoFTG_sham | 0.58 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.05 | 0.34 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.04 | 0.35 ± 0.04 | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.04 |
| FTG_sham | 0.78 ± 0.04 | 0.70 ± 0.04 | 0.61 ± 0.05 | 0.56 ± 0.05 | 0.59 ± 0.03 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.44 ± 0.04 | 0.39 ± 0.03 |
| FTG_M1 | 0.68 ± 0.04 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 0.5 ± 0.05 | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.38 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.03 |
Additional files
-
Transparent reporting form
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40578.009
