Sensorimotor feedback loops are selectively sensitive to reward

  1. Olivier Codol  Is a corresponding author
  2. Mehrdad Kashefi
  3. Christopher J Forgaard
  4. Joseph M Galea
  5. J Andrew Pruszynski
  6. Paul L Gribble
  1. Western University, Canada
  2. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

Abstract

Although it is well established that motivational factors such as earning more money for performing well improve motor performance, how the motor system implements this improvement remains unclear. For instance, feedback-based control, which uses sensory feedback from the body to correct for errors in movement, improves with greater reward. But feedback control encompasses many feedback loops with diverse characteristics such as the brain regions involved and their response time. Which specific loops drive these performance improvements with reward is unknown, even though their diversity makes it unlikely that they are contributing uniformly. We systematically tested the effect of reward on the latency (how long for a corrective response to arise?) and gain (how large is the corrective response?) of seven distinct sensorimotor feedback loops in humans. Only the fastest feedback loops were insensitive to reward, and the earliest reward-driven changes were consistently an increase in feedback gains, not a reduction in latency. Rather, a reduction of response latencies only tended to occur in slower feedback loops. These observations were similar across sensory modalities (vision and proprioception). Our results may have implications regarding feedback control performance in athletic coaching. For instance, coaching methodologies that rely on reinforcement or 'reward shaping' may need to specifically target aspects of movement that rely on reward-sensitive feedback responses.

Data availability

All behavioural data and analysis code are freely available online on the Open Science Framework website at https://osf.io/7t8yj/

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Olivier Codol

    Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, Canada
    For correspondence
    codol.olivier@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0796-5457
  2. Mehrdad Kashefi

    Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5981-5923
  3. Christopher J Forgaard

    Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Joseph M Galea

    School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0009-4049
  5. J Andrew Pruszynski

    Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0786-0081
  6. Paul L Gribble

    Brain and Mind Institute, Western University, London, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1368-032X

Funding

Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada (RGPIN-2018-05458)

  • Paul L Gribble

Canadian Institue of Health Research (PJT-156241)

  • Paul L Gribble

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Kunlin Wei, Peking University, China

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants signed a consent form to provide informed consent prior to the experimental session. Recruitment and data collection were done in accordance with the requirements of the research ethics board at Western University, Project ID # 115787.

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: September 20, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 5, 2022
  3. Accepted: December 29, 2022
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: January 13, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: February 9, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Codol et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,979
    views
  • 265
    downloads
  • 6
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Olivier Codol
  2. Mehrdad Kashefi
  3. Christopher J Forgaard
  4. Joseph M Galea
  5. J Andrew Pruszynski
  6. Paul L Gribble
(2023)
Sensorimotor feedback loops are selectively sensitive to reward
eLife 12:e81325.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81325

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81325

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Jack W Lindsey, Elias B Issa
    Research Article

    Object classification has been proposed as a principal objective of the primate ventral visual stream and has been used as an optimization target for deep neural network models (DNNs) of the visual system. However, visual brain areas represent many different types of information, and optimizing for classification of object identity alone does not constrain how other information may be encoded in visual representations. Information about different scene parameters may be discarded altogether (‘invariance’), represented in non-interfering subspaces of population activity (‘factorization’) or encoded in an entangled fashion. In this work, we provide evidence that factorization is a normative principle of biological visual representations. In the monkey ventral visual hierarchy, we found that factorization of object pose and background information from object identity increased in higher-level regions and strongly contributed to improving object identity decoding performance. We then conducted a large-scale analysis of factorization of individual scene parameters – lighting, background, camera viewpoint, and object pose – in a diverse library of DNN models of the visual system. Models which best matched neural, fMRI, and behavioral data from both monkeys and humans across 12 datasets tended to be those which factorized scene parameters most strongly. Notably, invariance to these parameters was not as consistently associated with matches to neural and behavioral data, suggesting that maintaining non-class information in factorized activity subspaces is often preferred to dropping it altogether. Thus, we propose that factorization of visual scene information is a widely used strategy in brains and DNN models thereof.

    1. Neuroscience
    Zhaoran Zhang, Huijun Wang ... Kunlin Wei
    Research Article

    The sensorimotor system can recalibrate itself without our conscious awareness, a type of procedural learning whose computational mechanism remains undefined. Recent findings on implicit motor adaptation, such as over-learning from small perturbations and fast saturation for increasing perturbation size, challenge existing theories based on sensory errors. We argue that perceptual error, arising from the optimal combination of movement-related cues, is the primary driver of implicit adaptation. Central to our theory is the increasing sensory uncertainty of visual cues with increasing perturbations, which was validated through perceptual psychophysics (Experiment 1). Our theory predicts the learning dynamics of implicit adaptation across a spectrum of perturbation sizes on a trial-by-trial basis (Experiment 2). It explains proprioception changes and their relation to visual perturbation (Experiment 3). By modulating visual uncertainty in perturbation, we induced unique adaptation responses in line with our model predictions (Experiment 4). Overall, our perceptual error framework outperforms existing models based on sensory errors, suggesting that perceptual error in locating one’s effector, supported by Bayesian cue integration, underpins the sensorimotor system’s implicit adaptation.