Age-dependent predictors of effective reinforcement motor learning across childhood

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here the authors address how reinforcement-based sensorimotor adaptation changes throughout development. To address this question, they collected many participants in ages that ranged from small children (3 years old) to adulthood (18+ years old). The authors used four experiments to manipulate whether binary and positive reinforcement was provided probabilistically (e.g., 30 or 50%) versus deterministically (e.g.,100%), and continuous (infinite possible locations) versus discrete (binned possible locations) when the probability of reinforcement varied along the span of a large redundant target. The authors found that both movement variability and the extent of adaptation changed with age.

Strengths:

The major strength of the paper is the number of participants collected (n = 385). The authors also answer their primary question, that reinforcement-based sensorimotor adaptation changes throughout development, which was shown by utilizing established experimental designs and computational modelling.

Weaknesses:

Potential concerns involve inconsistent findings with secondary analyses, current assumptions that impact both interpretation and computational modelling, and a lack of clearly stated hypotheses.

(1) Multiple regression and Mediation Analyses.

The challenge with these secondary analyses is that:
(a) The results are inconsistent between Experiments 1 and 2, and the analysis was not performed for Experiments 3 and 4,
(b) The authors used a two-stage procedure of using multiple regression to determine what variables to use for the mediation analysis, and
(c) The authors already have a trial-by-trial model that is arguably more insightful.

Given this, some suggested changes are to:
(a) Perform the mediation analysis with all the possible variables (i.e., not informed by multiple regression) to see if the results are consistent.
(b) Move the regression/mediation analysis to Supplementary, since it is slightly distracting given current inconsistencies and that the trial-by-trial model is arguably more insightful.

(2) Variability for different phases and model assumptions:

A nice feature of the experimental design is the use of success and failure clamps. These clamped phases, along with baseline, are useful because they can provide insights into the partitioning of motor and exploratory noise. Based on the assumptions of the model, the success clamp would only reflect variability due to motor noise (excludes variability due to exploratory noise and any variability due to updates in reach aim). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the success clamps would have lower variability than the failure clamps (which it obviously does in Figure 6), and presumably baseline (which provides success and failure feedback, thus would contain motor noise and likely some exploratory noise).

However, in Figure 6, one visually observes greater variability during the success clamp (where it is assumed variability only comes from motor noise) compared to baseline (where variability would come from:
(a) Motor noise.
(b) Likely some exploratory noise since there were some failures.
(c) Updates in reach aim.

Given the comment above, can the authors please:
(a) Statistically compare movement variability between the baseline, success clamp, and failure clamp phases.
(b) The authors have examined how their model predicts variability during success clamps and failure clamps, but can they also please show predictions for baseline (similar to that of Cashaback et al., 2019; Supplementary B, which alternatively used a no feedback baseline)?
(c) Can the authors show whether participants updated their aim towards their last successful reach during the success clamp? This would be a particularly insightful analysis of model assumptions.
(d) Different sources of movement variability have been proposed in the literature, as have different related models. One possibility is that the nervous system has knowledge of 'planned (noise)' movement variability that is always present, irrespective of success (van Beers, R. J. (2009). Motor learning is optimally tuned to the properties of motor noise. Neuron, 63(3), 406-417). The authors have used slightly different variations of their model in the past. Roth et al (2023) directly compared several different plausible models with various combinations of motor, planned, and exploratory noise (Roth A, 2023, "Reinforcement-based processes actively regulate motor exploration along redundant solution manifolds." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 290: 20231475: see Supplemental). Their best-fit model seems similar to the one the authors propose here, but the current paper has the added benefit of the success and failure clamps to tease the different potential models apart. In light of the results of a), b), and c), the authors are encouraged to provide a paragraph on how their model relates to the various sources of movement variability and other models proposed in the literature.
(e) line 155. Why would the success clamp be composed of both motor and exploratory noise? Please clarify in the text

(3) Hypotheses:

The introduction did not have any hypotheses of development and reinforcement, despite the discussion above setting up potential hypotheses. Did the authors have any hypotheses related to why they might expect age to change motor noise, exploratory noise, and learning rates? If so, what would the experimental behaviour look like to confirm these hypotheses? Currently, the manuscript reads more as an exploratory study, which is certainly fine if true, it should just be explicitly stated in the introduction. Note: on line 144, this is a prediction, not a hypothesis. Line 225: this idea could be sharpened. I believe the authors are speaking to the idea of having more explicit knowledge of action-target pairings changing behaviour.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Hill and colleagues use a novel reinforcement-based motor learning task ("RML"), asking how aspects of RML change over the course of development from toddler years through adolescence. Multiple versions of the RML task were used in different samples, which varied on two dimensions: whether the reward probability of a given hand movement direction was deterministic or probabilistic, and whether the solution space had continuous reach targets or discrete reach targets. Using analyses of both raw behavioral data and model fits, the authors report four main results: First, developmental improvements reflected 3 clear changes, including increases in exploration, an increase in the RL learning rate, and a reduction of intrinsic motor noise. Second, changes to the task that made it discrete and/or deterministic both rescued performance in the youngest age groups, suggesting that observed deficits could be linked to continuous/probabilistic learning settings. Overall, the results shed light on how RML changes throughout human development, and the modeling characterizes the specific learning deficits seen in the youngest ages.

Strengths:

(1) This impressive work addresses an understudied subfield of motor control/psychology - the developmental trajectory of motor learning. It is thus timely and will interest many researchers.

(2) The task, analysis, and modeling methods are very strong. The empirical findings are rather clear and compelling, and the analysis approaches are convincing. Thus, at the empirical level, this study has very few weaknesses.

(3) The large sample sizes and in-lab replications further reflect the laudable rigor of the study.

(4) The main and supplemental figures are clear and concise.

Weaknesses:

(1) Framing.
One weakness of the current paper is the framing, namely w/r/t what can be considered "cognitive" versus "non-cognitive" ("procedural?") here. In the Intro, for example, it is stated that there are specific features of RML tasks that deviate from cognitive tasks. This is of course true in terms of having a continuous choice space and motor noise, but spatially correlated reward functions are not a unique feature of motor learning (see e.g. Giron et al., 2023, NHB). Given the result here that simplifying the spatial memory demands of the task greatly improved learning for the youngest cohort, it is hard to say whether the task is truly getting at a motor learning process or more generic cognitive capacities for spatial learning, working memory, and hypothesis testing. This is not a logical problem with the design, as spatial reasoning and working memory are intrinsically tied to motor learning. However, I think the framing of the study could be revised to focus in on what the authors truly think is motor about the task versus more general psychological mechanisms. Indeed, it may be the case that deficits in motor learning in young children are mostly about cognitive factors, which is still an interesting result!

(2) Links to other scholarship.
If I'm not mistaken a common observation in studies of the development of reinforcement learning is a decrease in exploration over-development (e.g., Nussenbaum and Hartley, 2019; Giron et al., 2023; Schulz et al., 2019); this contrasts with the current results which instead show an increase. It would be nice to see a more direct discussion of previous findings showing decreases in exploration over development, and why the current study deviates from that. It could also be useful for the authors to bring in concepts of different types of exploration (e.g. "directed" vs "random"), in their interpretations and potentially in their modeling.

(3) Modeling.
First, I may have missed something, but it is unclear to me if the model is actually accounting for the gradient of rewards (e.g., if I get a probabilistic reward moving at 45˚, but then don't get one at 40˚, I should be more likely to try 50˚ next then 35˚). I couldn't tell from the current equations if this was the case, or if exploration was essentially "unsigned," nor if the multiple-trials-back regression analysis would truly capture signed behavior. If the model is sensitive to the gradient, it would be nice if this was more clear in the Methods. If not, it would be interesting to have a model that does "function approximation" of the task space, and see if that improves the fit or explains developmental changes. Second, I am curious if the current modeling approach could incorporate a kind of "action hysteresis" (aka perseveration), such that regardless of previous outcomes, the same action is biased to be repeated (or, based on parameter settings, avoided).

(4) Psychological mechanisms.
There is a line of work that shows that when children and adults perform RL tasks they use a combination of working memory and trial-by-trial incremental learning processes (e.g., Master et al., 2020; Collins and Frank 2012). Thus, the observed increase in the learning rate over development could in theory reflect improvements in instrumental learning, working memory, or both. Could it be that older participants are better at remembering their recent movements in short-term memory (Hadjiosif et al., 2023; Hillman et al., 2024)?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study investigates reinforcement learning across the lifespan with a large sample of participants recruited for an online game. It finds that children gradually develop their abilities to learn reward probability, possibly hindered by their immature spatial processing and probabilistic reasoning abilities. Motor noise, reinforcement learning rate, and exploration after a failure all contribute to children's subpar performance.

Strengths:

(1) The paradigm is novel because it requires continuous movement to indicate people's choices, as opposed to discrete actions in previous studies.

(2) A large sample of participants were recruited.

(3) The model-based analysis provides further insights into the development of reinforcement learning ability.

Weaknesses:

(1) The adequacy of model-based analysis is questionable, given the current presentation and some inconsistency in the results.

(2) The task should not be labeled as reinforcement motor learning, as it is not about learning a motor skill or adapting to sensorimotor perturbations. It is a classical reinforcement learning paradigm.