This is a short report of a mini project which was done as part of a course called Computational Mechanisms of Learning in Technical University of Munich.
Contributors to the project are:
- Abdallah Alashqar
- Pranshul Saini
- Raja Judeh, and
- Mohammad Bashiri
A common task in human motor adaptation experiments is the simple 2D trajectory movement. In such task, subject starts from an initial position and she/he is instructed to reach the target position, within reasonable time limit. While performing the task the subject is either exposed to a null field (no force applied on the subject's hand) or to a force field (force applied on the hand). Given these two fields, we can observe the trajectory of hand movement and characterize the details of adaptation, or washout, in the subject. Adaptation refers to regaining smooth trajectories when the subject is exposed to a force field. Washout is a essentially adapting back to null filed after having adapted to a force field.
Let's consider a task as explained above (Figure 1). During the trajectory, the subject is exploring the dynamics of a new environment. At every point of the trajectory, the subject exhibits a specific velocity to move towards the goal (or desired trajectory). Hence, we can consider every point, along the trajectory, a state with the state variable hand velocity.
In every state (i.e., specific velocity in x and y direction), we expect a force (the prior) on our hand, and to counteract the force we would apply a force opposite to that, which leaves us with a net force that takes the hand towards the goal (f_goal). However, before adaptation to the force field, the net force guides us to a new position which is most likely not on the desired trajectory. Hence, we would biologically compute the most likely force that could have given rise to the observed trajectory (i.e., likelihood). Assuming that our sensory system is functioning well, we should be able to, roughly, estimate the force that is applied by force field on out hand. Since the force field is a function of the hand velocity (i.e., the state variable), we can construct the likelihood as a Gaussian that has a mean around appleid force by the force field, and a variance that expresses the uncertainty in our sensory input. Hence the likelihood would be:
After esitmating the applied force, we would then update our prior, resulting in a posterior distribution, which is then used as the prior in the next trial for the same state.
Moreover, due to generalization, this posterior, which is an update for the prior of this specific state, would change the priors for other states, including the onses within the same trial.
in the very first trial, our prior is according to the null field. In other words, we have gotten some experience over the years to move ourselves (i.e., our hand) within the dynamics of the air around us, and we can somewhat automatically apply a force which takes our hand to the target (f_goal). Null field prior, is assumed to be a Gaussian centered around zero. As soon as we are exposed to a force field, we feel an extra force on our hand, driving us far from the target, and we start estimating that force, and updating our belief about the environment dynamics we are interacting with. Figure 2a shows an example of a desired trajectory and observed trajectory (influenced by the force field) in position space. Figure 2b shows the observed trajectory in velocity space.
Now, after interacting with the force field, we have a posterior of the force distribution given a specific velocity state, and we need to update out belief about the force that is expected, given this state.
Note that in Figure 3 which illustrates the update of prior force distribution given a specific state, the generalization is ignored - not only we use the posterior of state 1 to update the prior for future states, but also future states would influence the prior of state 1.
The experience gained in one state could be generalized to another state. This behavior is also observed in human
behavior [reference].
--------- TODO ---------
Add the explanation
--------- TODO ---------
An obvious example of within-trials adaptation (or correction) is the first force-field trial. In the very first trial, we are still new to the force field dynamics – no experience. However, the influence of the experience gained from the first few states would help us to form a rough estimation about the states to come, and at the end, even within the first trial, we would end up in target.
Up to this point, one important factor, which is ignored in this description, is the goal. The goals defines a default force that is always applied to achieve it. Moreover, to reach the goal, or to be on the desired trajectory, we would try to cancel out all other forces applied, so that the net force is the force that would direct us to the goal. During the trajectory, the position of our hand changes, hence the direction (and amplitude) of the force that we need to apply to reach to the target. Therefore, I think the force that we apply is actually not opposite to prior, but the addition of opposite of prior and a force towards the goal. To sum this up: the objective is to estimate the force that is applied on our hand correctly so we could apply a force on manipulandum that result in a net force which takes the hand towards the target. In fact, the equation(s) above need a little bit of modification:
--------- TODO ---------
Add the explanation
--------- TODO ---------
one common way to characterize subject's progress in adaptation is by means of measuring force compensation. given the velocity of subject's hand, since the force applied by the force field is a function of hand's velocity, we can compute the ideal force that must be applied by the subject to completely cancel out the force field. Along the trajectory (going from starting point to target) we can compute the ideal force compensation, and compare that with the force applied by the subject. we can compare the areas under the graph for the ideal and subject's force compensation and the higher the percentage of coverage of ideal force compensation area by the subject's force compensation, the better. Figure 5 shows the force compensation exhibited by the simulation of our model for specific trials for the whole trajectory. Figure 6 shows the coverage percentage over many trials.
Below is a short illustration of simulation without generalization.
Below is a short illustration of simulation with generalization.
We would like to thank Prof. David Franklin for his amazing teaching style, and kind supervision throughout this project. We also, deeply appreciate Justinas Cesonis's invaluable support for the course, as well as the project.
[1] Shadmehr, Reza, and Ferdinando A. Mussa-Ivaldi. "Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task." Journal of Neuroscience 14, no. 5 (1994): 3208-3224.