Providing Explicit Information Disrupts Implicit Motor Learning After Basal Ganglia Stroke

  1. Lara A. Boyd1,3 and
  2. Carolee J. Winstein2
  1. 1Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, Department of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas 66160, USA2 Department of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, Department of Neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA

Abstract

Despite their purported neuroanatomic and functional isolation, empirical evidence suggests that sometimes conscious explicit processes can influence implicit motor skill learning. Our goal was to determine if the provision of explicit information affected implicit motor-sequence learning after damage to the basal ganglia. Individuals with stroke affecting the basal ganglia (BG) and healthy controls (HC) practiced a continuous implicit motor-sequencing task; half were provided with explicit information (EI) and half were not (No-EI). The focus of brain damage for both BG groups was in the putamen. All of the EI participants were at least explicitly aware of the repeating sequence. Across three days of practice, explicit information had a differential effect on the groups. Explicit information disrupted acquisition performance in participants with basal ganglia stroke but not healthy controls. By retention (day 4), a dissociation was apparent—explicit information hindered implicit learning in participants with basal ganglia lesions but aided healthy controls. It appears that after basal ganglia stroke explicit information is less helpful in the development of the motor plan than is discovering a motor solution using the implicit system alone. This may be due to the increased demand placed on working memory by explicit information. Thus, basal ganglia integrity may be a crucial factor in determining the efficacy of explicit information for implicit motor-sequence learning.

Footnotes

  • 4 bo = 2.0, a1 = -4.0, b1 = 3.0, a2 = - 4.9, b2 = - 3.6, a3 = 3.9, b3 = 4.5, a4 = 0.0, b4 = 1.0, a5 = - 3.8, b5 = - 0.5, a6 = 1.0, and b6 = 2.5

  • 5 Formula

    5 xi = participant's position in degrees at time 1, Ti = target position at time 1, n = the number of samples for the participant's trajectory array.

  • Article and publication are at http://www.learnmem.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/lm.80104.

    • Accepted June 9, 2004.
    • Received April 12, 2004.
| Table of Contents