8662 • The Journal of Neuroscience, October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671

Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

Failure to Consolidate the Consolidation Theory of Learning
for Sensorimotor Adaptation Tasks
Graham Caithness,1 Rieko Osu,2 Paul Bays,3 Henry Chase,3 Jessica Klassen,1 Mitsuo Kawato,2 Daniel M. Wolpert,3 andJ. Randall Flanagan1
Department of Psychology and Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6 Canada, 2Advanced Telecommunications
Research Institute, Computational Neuroscience Laboratories, Kyoto 619-0288, Japan, and 3Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience, Institute of
Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom
1

An influential idea in human motor learning is that there is a consolidation period during which motor memories are transformed froma fragile to a permanent state, no longer susceptible to interference from new learning. The evidence supporting this idea comes fromstudies showing that the motor memory of a task (A) is lost when an opposing task (B) is experienced soon after, but not if sufficient timeis allowed to pass (⬃6 hr). We report results from three laboratories challenging this consolidation idea. We used an ABA paradigm in thecontext of a reaching task to assess the influence of experiencing B after A on the retention of A. In two experiments using visuomotor
rotations, we found that B fully interferes with the retention of A even when B is experienced 24 hr after A. Contrary to previous reports,
in four experiments on learning force fields, we also observed full interference between A and B when they are separated by 24 hr or even
1 week. This latter result holds for both position-dependent and velocity-dependent force fields. For both the visuomotor and force-fieldtasks, complete interference is still observed when the possible affects of anterograde interference are controlled through the use of
washout trials. Our results fail to support the idea that motor memories become consolidated into a protected state. Rather, they are
consistent with recent ideas of memory formation, which propose that memories can shift between active and inactive states.
Key words: motor learning; internal models; arm movement; visuomotor rotation; force field; retrograde interference

Introduction
Traditional theories of learning posit that new memories aretransferred from a short-term labile state to a long-term fixedstate that is more or less permanent and protected from newlearning. The time course of this consolidation process after
learning can be probed by having subjects learn new material andtesting for retention of the original material. The process bywhich new learning may interfere with the consolidation of previous learning is referred to as retrograde interference. In humanmotor learning, support for such a consolidation process has
been provided by two influential studies of dynamic motor learning (Brashers-Krug et al., 1996; Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug,
1997).
In these studies, subjects adapted to opposing force fields (Athen B) applied to the hand during a reaching task. When thesefields were experienced 5 min apart, subjects showed no retentionof A when tested the following day. However, when the fields
were experienced ⱖ6 hr apart, retention of A was observed. If
only one field was experienced, retention was long lasting, perReceived June 7, 2004; revised Aug. 4, 2004; accepted Aug. 19, 2004.
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Wellcome
Trust, the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (Japan), and the Human Frontier
Science Program.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. J. R. Flanagan, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6 Canada. E-mail: flanagan@psyc.queensu.ca.
DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2214-04.2004
Copyright © 2004 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/04/248662-10$15.00/0

sisting for as long as 5 months (Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug,
1997). These findings supported the idea that new motor memories undergo a period of consolidation, after which they become
resistant to being overwritten by new learning. These studies havemotivated many studies of motor learning and interference(Shadmehr and Holcomb, 1997; Krakauer et al., 1999; Bock et al.,
2001; Muellbacher et al., 2002; Tong et al., 2002; Miall et al.,2004).
Interference between opposing visuomotor rotations experienced in close temporal proximity during reaching tasks has also
been shown (Krakauer et al., 1999; Wigmore et al., 2002). Similarinterference has been reported for a throwing task performed
with left and right deviating prisms (Goedert and Willingham,
2002). However, unlike the force-field learning, retrograde interference was still observed when the left and right prisms wereexperienced 1 day apart. Thus, the consolidation hypothesis was
not supported.
Given these disparate results, it seems critical to further explore and test the consolidation hypothesis in relation to visuomotor and dynamic learning. Here, we report the results from six
experiments performed in three laboratories. In the first two experiments, we examined whether the lack of consolidation seenin throwing under prisms also applies to the often-studied targetdirected reaching tasks under visuomotor rotations (Krakauer etal., 1999, 2000; Tong et al., 2002; Miall et al., 2004). In the third
experiment, we tested whether the consolidation reported forvelocity-dependent force fields is also seen in another dynamic

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671 • 8663

Table 1. Descriptions of the six experiments
Location

Perturbation

Movement

PostureExperiment

Subjects

Group

Kingston

Visuomotor rotation

Out and backSupported

1

7
8
5
8
6

Control
Test
Control
Test
Control

6
6

Test 5 min
Test 24 hr

6
11
8
5
8
9
9
6
9

Test 5 min
Control 24 hr
Test 24 hr
Control 1 week
Test 1 week
Control
Test
ControlTest

2
LondonKingston

Kyoto

Position-dependent force field

Velocity-dependent force field

Velocity-dependent force field

Out and backOut and back

Free

Free

3

4

Point to point

Supported

5

Point to point

Supported

6

Paradigm

N
N
N
N

➀
➀
➀
➀

A
A
NA
NA
A
A
B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA

➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➀
➆
➆
➀
➀
➀
➀

B
NA
NB

B
A
B
B
B
NN
NB

➀
➀
➀
➀
➀

A
A
NA
NA
A

➀
➀

A
A

➀
➀
➀
➆
➆
➀
➀
➀
➀

A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA

➀, 1 d; ➆, 7 d; N, null trials; A, perturbation trials; B, opposite perturbation to A.

task; namely, a position-dependent force field. In the remaining
three experiments, we tested interference under velocitydependent force fields in a number of conditions.
We failed to observe consolidation in any of these experiments. That is, we found complete interference between opposing visuomotor rotations, opposing position-dependent force
fields, and opposing velocity-dependent force fields under a variety of tasks, even when the fields were experienced ⱖ24 hr apart.

Materials and Methods
Subjects

Experiments were run in Kingston, Canada; Kyoto, Japan; and London,
United Kingdom. In total, 120 right-handed subjects participated after
providing informed consent, and all experimental protocols were approved by local ethics boards. All subjects were naive to the experimental
hypotheses and received payment for their participation. All subjects had
normal or corrected for normal vision and had no obvious motor deficits. Three subjects were later removed from the analysis because theyfailed to show normal adaptation.

Apparatus
Similar experimental setups were used in Kingston, Kyoto, and London.
All required subjects to make reaching movements with their right hand.
The position of the hand was tracked, and visual feedback of hand position (in the form of a cursor) and targets could be displayed in real time.
In addition, state-dependent forces could be applied to the hand by arobotic manipulandum, and visual feedback of the hand cursor could be
rotated. The position of the hand was stored for off-line analysis. The
Kyoto and London setups were described in detail by Gomi and Kawato(1996) and Goodbody and Wolpert (1998), respectively. Here, we describe the basic elements of the setups, highlighting key differences.
Kingston: experiments 1 and 2. The arm was supported in the horizontal plane by a lightweight brace mounted on air pucks that floated on a
cushion of air allowing near-frictionless motion across a tabletop. In
experiment 1, an electromagnetic recording system (Ascension Technologies, Burlington, VT) was used to record the position of the hand at 100
Hz. In experiment 2, hand position was recorded at 1000 Hz by a lightweight manipulandum (Phantom Haptic Interface 3.0L; Sensable Technologies, Woburn, MA) that subjects held in their hand. Visual feedbackof hand position was provided in the plane of movement using a mirrorprojection system that prevented direct viewing of the hand.
London: experiment 3. Subjects held the handle of a lightweight manipulandum (Phantom Haptic Interface 3.0; Sensable Technologies).
The manipulandum measured the position of the hand at 1000 Hz andcould generate forces that were servo-controlled at 1000 Hz. Visual feed-back of hand position was provided in three dimensions using a stereoscopic mirror-projection system that prevented direct viewing of thehand (for full details, see Goodbody and Wolpert, 1998). Subjects
adopted a natural posture with the elbow below the hand and shoulder.
Kingston: experiments 4 and 5. The same type of manipulandum usedin experiment 3 was used to measure the position of the hand (1000 Hz)
and generate forces at the hand (servo-controlled at 1000 Hz). Visualfeedback of hand position was provided in the plane of movement using
a mirror-projection system that prevented direct viewing of the hand. In
experiment 4, subjects adopted a natural posture with the elbow below
the hand and shoulder. In experiment 5, the arm was supported in thehorizontal plane by the air puck system described above.
Kyoto: experiments 6. Subjects held the handle of a robotic manipulandum that could exert forces (Gomi and Kawato, 1996). The forearm was
supported in the horizontal plane by a freely rotating beam attached tothe handle. The position of the hand was sampled at 500 Hz. Visualfeedback of hand position (in the form of a cursor) and targets were
projected onto a horizontal opaque screen mounted just above the arm.

Procedure
The general procedure was similar in all experiments (Table 1). With the
exception of experiment 4, subjects made reaching movements from acentral start position to one of eight radial targets, and visual feedback of
the hand (i.e., cursor) and target was available throughout the
movement.
Experiment 1: visuomotor rotations. This experiment included twogroups of subjects, a test group (n ⫽ 8) and a control group (n ⫽ 7).
Participants in the test group performed an out-and-back reaching taskwith a ⫹30° visuomotor rotation imposed on day 1. Twenty-four hours
later, they returned to perform the same task with the opposing ⫺30°
rotation. After a second 24 hr period, participants performed the task
again with the original ⫹30° rotation. Participants in the control groupperformed the task under the ⫹30° rotation on day 1 and then again 48 hrlater on day 3.
The start circle (diameter, 2.2 cm) was located 30 cm below eye level inthe subject’s midsagittal plane with the shoulder at 45° and the elbow at
90°. To initiate a trial, participants moved the cursor (diameter, 1.7 cm)
into the start circle, at which point one of eight radial targets (diameter,
1.7 cm), located 15 cm from the start, appeared. Participants were instructed to make out-and-back movements (to the target and back to thestart) within 500 msec. They were encouraged to move smoothly and to
make corrections for errors between trials rather than within a trial. This
500 msec time was signaled by both a color change of the start circle anda brief tone. Targets were presented in a sequence starting at 0° (outward)
and continuing counterclockwise (CCW) in 45° increments. A block wasCaithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

8664 • J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671

defined as a set of eight movements to each target in the sequence. On
each testing day, subjects performed 30 blocks (240 movements). At thestart of the first session, all subjects performed four familiarization blocks(32 movements) in the null condition (i.e., with no rotation).
Experiment 2: visuomotor rotations with washout trials. This experiment included a test group (n ⫽ 8) and a control group (n ⫽ 5). The task
was the same as in experiment 1, except that subjects performed eightblocks (64 movements) without a visuomotor rotation (null condition)at the beginning of every session. These null or “washout” trials served towashout or remove possible anterograde interference effects from previous learning. Subjects in the test group experienced the same rotation ondays 1 and 3 (either ⫹30° or ⫺30°) and the opposite rotation on day 2.
The control group experienced the same rotation (either ⫹30° or ⫺30°)
on all 3 d.
Experiment 3: position-dependent force fields. Eighteen subjects wereassigned randomly to one of three groups with six subjects in each. In allgroups, on day 1, subjects first performed the out-and-back reaching taskwith either a CCW or clockwise (CW) position-dependent rotary force
field (Tong et al., 2002). The two test groups then experienced the opposite force field either 5 min or 1 d later. All groups returned on day 3 andexperienced the same force field as in the first session of day 1. The
stiffness of the position-dependent force field (i.e., the coefficient relating
hand displacement from the starting circle to the rotary force applied tothe hand) was set at 60 N/m.
The out-and-back reaching task used was similar to that described forexperiment 1, with the following differences. Auditory feedback warned
the subject if they had failed to make the movement in the requisite timeof 600 ⫾ 100 msec. Each target would appear once during a block of eight
trials but were selected in a pseudorandom order. Each session consistedof 24 blocks, hence 192 trials per session. At the end of every six blocks,
the subject was given a 1 min rest period to avoid fatigue. Before the firstsession, subjects were given four blocks in a null field (no forces applied),
to familiarize themselves with the equipment.
Experiment 4: rotary velocity-dependent force fields with natural arm
posture. Thirty-eight subjects were assigned randomly to one of fivegroups. In all groups, subjects first performed the out-and-back reachingtask with a CCW velocity-dependent rotary force field (Shadmehr andBrashers-Krug, 1997). The three test groups then experienced the opposite, CW, force field 5 min (n ⫽ 6), 1 d (n ⫽ 8), or 1 week (n ⫽ 8) later,
respectively. The 5 min and 1 d groups then returned 1 d later to experience the original CCW field, whereas the 1 week group returned 1 week
later to experience the CCW field. In the two control groups, subjects
experienced the CCW fields either 2 d (n ⫽ 11) or 2 weeks (n ⫽ 5) apart.
The viscosity of the force field (i.e., the coefficient relating hand velocity
to rotary force applied to the hand) was set at 8 N-s/m.
The same out-and-back reaching task described for experiment 1 wasused, and, again, both visual and auditory cues were provided to indicate
the desired movement time (500 msec). For each session with a given
force field, subjects performed 30 blocks (240 movements). At the start of
the first session, all subjects performed four familiarization blocks (32movements) in the null condition (i.e., with no force field).
Experiment 5: rotary velocity-dependent force fields with arm supported.
Eighteen subjects participated in this experiment in which the arm was
supported in the horizontal plane by air sleds. Both the control group(n ⫽ 9) and the test group (n ⫽ 9) experienced 30 blocks of the null fieldon day 1, followed by the CCW velocity-dependent force field on days 2
and 4. The test group also experienced the CW field on day 3.
In this experiment, subjects made point-to-point reaches as opposed
to out-and-back reaches. On every other trial, they moved from the start
position to one of four targets (0, 45, 90, and 135°) located 10 cm away. In
the following trial, they then moved back to the start position, which
served as the target for that trial. Subjects were required to move to thetarget within 300 ⫾ 50 msec. If participants arrived too early, the targetchanged color from blue to red, instructing participants to slow down. If
participants arrived at the target too late, the target turned green, instructing them to speed up. If participants reached the target within the
100 msec window, the target remained blue and an audible tone wassounded. The viscosity of the force field was set at 6 N-s/m.
Experiment 6: rotary velocity-dependent force fields with washout trials.

Fifteen subjects participated and were assigned randomly to control (n ⫽6) and test (n ⫽ 9) groups. Both the groups were familiarized with thetask by performing 32 blocks (256 movements) without any force fields[null force field (NF)] on day 1. On day 2, after eight blocks in the NF, a
brief period of rest was provided (5 min), after which subjects were toldthat the manipulandum would produce rotational force on the hand.
Subjects performed 24 blocks (192 movements) during which the CW
force field was presented for half of the subjects and a CCW for the otherhalf. The viscosity of the force field was set at 20 N-s/m. On day 3, after
eight blocks in the NF and a brief period of rest, the test subjects were toldthat they would experience a different rotational force on the hand. Test
subjects performed 24 blocks in the force field rotating opposite to the
one they had experienced on day 2. The control group performed 24
additional blocks of the NF instead of the force field. On day 4, after eightblocks in the NF and a brief period of rest, subjects were told that theywould now experience the same force as on the second day. Subjects
again performed 24 blocks in the force field trained on day 2.
The start circle (diameter, 2 cm) was located 45 cm in front of theshoulder. To initiate a trial, participants moved the cursor (diameter, 0.4cm) into the start circle, at which point one of eight radial targets (diameter, 3 cm) appeared located 12.5 cm from the start. Participants wererequired to make a movement to the target with a duration (from leaving
the start circle) of 500 ⫾ 50 msec. Visual feedback of the hand position
was available during movements, and the entire hand path was shown
after movement terminated. Each target would appear once during a
block of eight trials, but in a pseudorandom order. The force field was off
when subjects returned to the start position and was on only during theoutward movements.

Analysis
To quantify learning, we analyzed the trajectories of the hand in thehorizontal plane in which targets were presented. In general, a measure
was selected to quantify the performance on a single movement, and toassess performance on a particular block, the median of this measure wastaken over the set of eight movements that comprise the block.
For visuomotor rotation experiments, we used as a measure the initial
angular error of the movement before any visual feedback could be incorporated to adjust the trajectory. This error was computed as the angle
between the vector from the start circle to the cursor position 150 msec
into the movement and the vector from the start circle to the target. The
reaching movement was considered to start when the tangential velocityof the hand last exceeded 10 cm/sec before reaching a speed of 40 cm/sec.
For the position-dependent force fields, we measured the mean perpendicular displacement of the hand from the straight line joining thestart circle and target. When subjects first encounter the positiondependent force field, the hand is typically deflected in terms of direction,
but the hand path may not be curved. This feature is well captured by ameasure of the deviations from a straight-line movement to the target.
For the velocity-dependent force fields, we used an area measure thatmeasures the area enclosed by the trajectory when the first and last points
are joined. When subjects first experience a velocity-dependent force
field, their hand path is typically curved and, in out-and-back movements, large loops in the path are seen. These features are well captured
by a measure of the area enclosed by the hand trajectory.
In addition, we analyzed experiment 6 using the vector correlation
measure proposed in Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi (1994). To perform
this analysis, we aligned the velocities sampled over 6 msec intervals to
the first time the velocity exceeded 2 cm/sec and used the next 83 data
points (498 msec). We found the average velocity vectors for each direction of movement in the last 32 movements in the day 1 null field. These
could be compared with the movements on the other days. There was a
typographical error (F. Mussa-Ivaldi, personal communication) in theoriginal formulation of the correlation measure described by Shadmehr
and Mussa-Ivaldi (1994), and we therefore provide the corrected formulation and Matlab code in the Appendix.
For all of the above measures, we assessed retention of learning in the
ABA paradigm by comparing the initial performance levels in the firstand second sessions of A using repeated-measures ANOVA.

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671 • 86650.96) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 23.23; SE ⫽ 0.83). Subjects in the test
group, who experienced the opposing rotation (B) on day 2,
showed no retention and, in fact, were worse on day 3 comparedwith day 1. The initial error on day 3 (M ⫽ 24.5; SE ⫽ 2.7) was
significantly greater (F(1,7) ⫽ 17.3; p ⫽ 0.004) than on day 1 (M ⫽16.46; SE ⫽ 2.5).
Previous studies have shown that learning of a visuomotor
rotation fails to be retained if an opposing visuomotor rotation isexperienced 5 min later (Krakauer et al., 1999; Wigmore et al.,2002). In addition, our results are in line with those of Goedert
and Willingham (2002), who have recently shown, using a throwing task with prisms, complete interference between opposing
visuomotor rotations experienced 24 hr apart. Our results showthat this lack of consolidation also applies to the well studied
reaching task to radial targets.

Figure 1. Adaptation to visuomotor rotations. Curves show mean angular error as a functionof block on different days. The height of the shaded areas represents ⫾1 SE. For clarity, we haveshaded the area formed by joining confidence intervals between adjacent blocks. The top panel
shows results for the control group who adapted to the same visuomotor rotation (A) on days 1
and 3. The bottom panels show results for the test group who also adapted to the opposing
visuomotor rotation (B) on day 2.

Results

Experiment 1: visuomotor rotations
In the first experiment, we tested whether adapting to opposing
visuomotor rotations 24 hr apart would interfere with retentionof the first rotation. Figure 1 shows learning curves for control
and test subjects. The curves show angular error as a function ofblock, and the ordinate represents the average across subjects inwhich the value for each subject is the median of the errors of theeight trials within a block. The height of the shaded area represents ⫾1 SE. Subjects in the control group, who experienced thesame visuomotor rotation (A) on days 1 and 3, showed clear
retention of learning on day 3. To quantify learning, we computed, for each subject and day, the average angular error acrossthe second and third blocks. This initial angular error was significantly less (F(1,6) ⫽ 425; p ⬍ 0.001) on day 3 (M ⫽ 5.48; SE ⫽Experiment 2: visuomotor rotations with washout trials
There are two processes at play when we learn two opposing tasks
in succession: retrograde interference, the effect of learning the
new task on retention of the old task, and anterograde interference, the effect of the old task on the new. The poor performanceon day 3 seen in the test group of experiment 1 (Fig. 1), could be
attributable to retrograde interference of task B (day 2) on thepreviously learned task A (day 1) or anterograde interference
from task B (day 2) affecting task A on the following day (day 3).
Indeed, this poor performance could arise from a combination ofpartial anterograde and retrograde effects (Miall et al., 2004).
Experiment 2 was similar to experiment 1, except that subjects
performed eight blocks of null trials without a visuomotor rotation at the beginning of each day. These washout trials were included to wash out or remove anterograde effects so as to enable
us to test for retrograde effects (Krakauer et al., 2003).
Subjects in the control group experienced the same visuomotor rotation (A) on days 1–3. The washout trials on days 2 and 3(Fig. 2, null) reveal the presence of initial anterograde effects that
gradually washed out. Similar washout effects were seen in thetest group. To test whether the washout was complete, we compared, for days 2 and 3 separately, the error at the end of thewashout trials (block 8) with the error at the end of the null trials(also block 8) on day 1. The latter provided a baseline because
there was no previous adaptation. For the control group, theerrors on day 2 (M ⫽ ⫺3.15; SE ⫽ 0.49) and day 3 (M ⫽ ⫺1.64;
SE ⫽ 0.37) were both significantly greater in magnitude (F(1,4) ⫽88.4, p ⬍ 0.001 and F(1,4) ⫽ 15.9, p ⫽ 0.016, respectively) than theerror on day 1 (M ⫽ ⫺0.74; SE ⫽ 0.31). For the test group, themagnitude of the error on day 2 (M ⫽ ⫺2.37; SE ⫽ 0.52) was
significantly less (F(1,7) ⫽ 10.8; p ⫽ 0.013) than on day 1 (M ⫽0.19; SE ⫽ 0.55). However, there was no difference (F(1,7) ⫽ 4.2;
p ⫽ 0.08) between the error on day 3 (M ⫽ 1.55; SE ⫽ 0.55) andthe error on day 1. These results indicate that anterograde effects
may still have been present after the washout trials. However, it
should be emphasized that these effects were very small (⬍3°).
Subjects in the test group showed no retention and were, infact, worse on day 3 compared with day 1: the initial error on day
3 (M ⫽ 17.9; SE ⫽ 2.14) was significantly greater (F(1,7) ⫽ 10.9;
p ⫽ 0.013) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 14.2; SE ⫽ 2.12). In the control
group, initial performance on day 3 (M ⫽ 3.4; SE ⫽ 3.26) was
better than on day 1 (M ⫽ 12.7; SE ⫽ 2.24), although this effectwas only marginally significant (F(1,4) ⫽ 7.2; p ⫽ 0.055).
The results of experiment 2 demonstrate that the failure toretain learning of a visuomotor rotation when learning an opposing rotation 1 day later can be explained by retrograde effects.

8666 • J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

Figure 2. Adaptation to visuomotor rotations with washout trials. Curves show mean angular error as a function of block on different days. Curves to the left of the dashed vertical line
show performance in null trials; those to the right show adaptation to the visuomotor rotation.
The height of the shaded areas represents ⫾1 SE. The top panel shows results for the control
group who adapted to the same visuomotor rotation (A) on days 1–3. The bottom panels show
results for the test group who also experienced A on days 1 and 3 but adapted to the opposing
visuomotor rotation (B) on day 2.

Experiment 3: position-dependent force fields
Experiments 1 and 2, taken together with previous work (Goedert and Willingham, 2002), demonstrate that memory for
visuomotor rotations is vulnerable to interference from learningof an opposing rotation even with a 24 hr interval between tasks.
This contrasts with previous reports on learning of velocitydependent force fields (Brashers-Krug et al., 1996; Shadmehr andBrashers-Krug, 1997). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that opposing dynamic tasks (e.g., force fields) can belearned independently, provided they are separated by a time
period sufficient for consolidation, whereas opposing kinematic
tasks (e.g., visuomotor rotations) cannot. To test whether thisputative consolidation applies to other dynamic conditions, inexperiment 3, we tested opposing position-dependent rotary
force fields (Fig. 3). To quantify performance in this task, we used
the mean perpendicular distance from the hand path to thestraight line joining the start circle and target.

Figure 3. Adaptation to position-dependent force fields. Curves show mean perpendiculardistance as a function of block on different days. The height of the shaded areas represents ⫾1
SE. The top panel shows results for the control group who adapted to the same force field (A) on
days 1 and 3. The middle and bottom panels show results for the 5 min test group and the 24 hr
test group who also adapted to the opposing force field (B) either 5 min after A on day 1 or on
day 2, respectively.

Subjects in the control group, who experienced the same
position-dependent force field (A) on days 1 and 3, showed clear
retention of learning on day 3. The initial mean perpendiculardistance (averaged over the second and third blocks) on day 3(M ⫽ 1.09; SE ⫽ 0.153) was significantly less (F(1,5) ⫽ 15.6; p ⫽0.011) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 2.01; SE ⫽ 0.276). Subjects in the 5
min test group, who experienced the opposing force field (B) 5
min after encountering the initial force field (A) on day 1, showedno retention on day 3 compared with day 1. The initial mean
perpendicular distance on day 3 (M ⫽ 1.92; SE ⫽ 0.193) was notCaithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671 • 8667

The initial area (averaged over the second
and third blocks) on day 2 (M ⫽ 38.5;
SE ⫽ 3.6) was reliably greater (F(1,7) ⫽12.2; p ⫽ 0.01) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 30.1;
SE ⫽ 3.6). Subjects in the 24 hr control
group, who experienced the same velocitydependent force field (A) on days 1 and 3,
showed clear retention of learning on day
3. The initial area on day 3 (M ⫽ 15.4;
SE ⫽ 1.1) was significantly less (F(1,10) ⫽14.1; p ⫽ 0.004) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 26.0;
SE ⫽ 3.0). Subjects in the 1 week control
group, who experienced the same velocitydependent force field (A) 2 weeks apart,showed clear retention of learning in week
Figure 4. Adaptation to velocity-dependent force fields. Curves show mean area enclosed by the hand path as a function of 3. The initial area in week 3 (M ⫽ 25.7;
block on different days. The height of the shaded areas represents ⫾1 SE. The left panel shows results for the 5 min test group who SE ⫽ 6.4) was significantly less (F(1,4) ⫽adapted to opposing force fields (A and then B) separated by 5 min on day 1 and then were retested on A on day 2. The middle 12.5; p ⫽ 0.02) than in week 1 (M ⫽ 25.7;
panels show results for the 24 hr control and test groups who adapted to A on day 1 and were retested on A 2 d later. The 24 hr test SE ⫽ 6.4).
group also adapted to the opposing force field B on day 2. The right panels show results for the 1 week control and test groups who
Subjects in the 24 hr test group, who
adapted to A on day 1 and were retested on A 2 weeks later. The 1 week test group also adapted to the opposing force field B a week experienced the opposing force field (B)after first adapting to A on day 1.
24 hr after encountering the initial force
field (A), showed no retention on day 3compared with day 1. The initial area on
day 3 (M ⫽ 40.9; SE ⫽ 6.4) was not signifreliably different (F(1,5) ⫽ 0.62; p ⫽ 0.47) from that on day 1
icantly different (F(1,7) ⫽ 1.7; p ⫽ 0.23) from that on day 1 (M ⫽(M ⫽ 2.19; SE ⫽ 0.267).
34.4; SE ⫽ 2.9). Subjects in the 1 week test group, who experiSubjects in the 24 hr test group, who experienced the opposing
enced the opposing force field (B) 1 week after the initial force
force field (B) 24 hr after encountering the initial force field (A),field (A), showed no retention in week 3 compared with week 1.
showed no retention on day 3 compared with day 1 and were, in
The initial area in week 3 (M ⫽ 40.0; SE ⫽ 4.2) was not significantly
fact, significantly worse on day 3. The initial mean perpendiculardifferent (F(1,5) ⫽ 0.23; p ⫽ 0.66) from that in week 1 (M ⫽ 34.9;
distance on day 3 (M ⫽ 3.48; SE ⫽ 0.32) was significantly greaterSE ⫽ 13.2).
than (F(1,5) ⫽ 18.1; p ⫽ 0.008) than on day 1 (M ⫽ 2.26; SE ⫽The results of experiment 4 show that when people use a nat0.3).
ural arm posture, they fail to independently learn opposing
The results of experiment 3 show that people fail to retain
velocity-dependent force fields when the tasks are separated by 1
learning of a position-dependent force field when subsequently
day or even 1 week.
learning an opposing force, even when this subsequent learning
occurs 1 day later. More broadly, we can conclude that the previously
Experiment 5: velocity-dependent force fields with
reported consolidation for opposing velocity-dependent force fields
arm supported
does not indicate that such consolidation is a general property ofGiven our inability to demonstrate independent learning ofdynamic tasks.
visuomotor rotations and both position-dependent and velocitydependent force fields, we attempted to replicate more closely theExperiment 4: velocity-dependent force fields with a natural
conditions under which such learning has been demonstrated
arm posturepreviously (Brashers-Krug et al., 1996; Shadmehr and BrashersOne key difference between the methodology used in experiment
Krug, 1997). To this end, in experiment 5, we supported the arm
3 and that used in previous studies showing independent learningin the horizontal plane, examined point-to-point movementsof opposing velocity-dependent force fields (Brashers-Krug et al.,(rather than out-and-back movements as in our previous exper1996; Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug, 1997) is the posture of theiments), tightly constrained movement time to 500 msec, andarm. Whereas the arm was constrained to move in the horizontal
included training in the null field the day before the perturbations
plane in studies of velocity-dependent force-field learning,were applied (Fig. 5).
subjects in experiment 3 were free to adopt a natural arm
Subjects in the control group, who experienced the same force
posture. These differences in arm posture certainly affect neufield (A) on days 2 and 4, showed clear retention of learning onral coding of movement (Scott and Kalaska, 1995) and could
day 4. The initial area on day 4 (M ⫽ 5.1; SE ⫽ 0.48) was signifhave an effect on the consolidation process. In experiment 4, we
icantly less (F(1,8) ⫽ 49.2; p ⬍ 0.001) than on day 2 (M ⫽ 10.2;
tested for independent learning of opposing velocity-dependentSE ⫽ 0.73). Subjects in the test group, who experienced the opforce fields, separated by either 5 min, 24 hr, or 1 week, when subjects
posing force field (B) 24 hr after the initial force field (A), showed
adopted a natural posture for reaching (Fig. 4). To assess perforno retention on day 4 compared with day 2 and, in fact, weremance in this task, in which subjects made movements out from theworse because the initial area on day 4 (M ⫽ 13.0; SE ⫽ 1.4) wasstart circle to the target and back, we used the area enclosed by thesignificantly greater (F(1,8) ⫽ 12.9; p ⫽ 0.007) than on day 2 (M ⫽hand path.
9.1; SE ⫽ 0.6).
Subjects in the 5 min test group, who experienced the opposThe results of experiment 5 failed to replicate the previous
ing force field (B) 5 min after encountering the initial force fieldstudies showing independent learning of opposing velocitydependent force fields when the tasks are separated by 1 day.
(A) on day 1, showed no retention on day 2 compared with day 1.

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

8668 • J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671

Figure 5. Adaptation to velocity-dependent force fields with the arm supported. Curves
show mean area enclosed by the hand path as a function of block on different days. The heightof the shaded areas represents ⫾1 SE. The top panel shows results for the control group who
trained on null trials on day 1 and then adapted to the same force field A on days 2 and 4. The
bottom panel shows results for the test group who also adapted to the opposing force field B on
day 3.

Experiment 6: velocity-dependent force fields with
washout trials
We performed experiments 3–5 before two recent publications
that highlighted the potential importance of including washout
trials in removing anterograde effects (Krakauer et al., 2003; Miallet al., 2004). It is unclear whether or not washout trials were
included in the previous experiments by Brashers-Krug et al.
(1996) and Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug (1997). In any event,
we thought it important to test whether we could find retentionof learning with washout trials. In experiment 6, subjects performed a set of null trials a day before perturbations were first
applied, and on each day perturbations were tested, they also
performed eight blocks of null trials that served as washout trials(Fig. 6). Again, the arm was supported in the horizontal plane, themovements were point to point, and movement time was tightly
constrained to be 500 msec. To assess task performance, we used
the area enclosed by the hand path as well as the velocity vector
correlation measure (Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi, 1994) previously used to assess consolidation (Brashers-Krug et al., 1996;
Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug, 1997).
Subjects in the control group experienced the same force field(A) on days 2 and 4 and a full session of null trials on day 3. The
washout trials on day 3 (Fig. 6, null) revealed the presence ofinitial anterograde effects that gradually washed out. Similar
washout effects were seen on days 3 and 4 for the test group, who
experienced the same force field (A) on days 2 and 4 and the
opposing force field (B) on day 3. To test whether the washout
was complete, we compared, for days 3 and 4 separately, the error
at the end of the washout trials (block 8) with the error at the endof the null trials (also block 8) on day 2. The latter provided abaseline because subjects in both groups experienced only null
trials on day 1. For the control group, the area on day 3 (M ⫽ 3.21;
SE ⫽ 0.47) and the area on day 4 (M ⫽ 2.99; SE ⫽ 0.20) were bothnot reliably different (F(1,5) ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ 0.913 and F(1,5) ⫽ 0.16,
p ⫽ 0.704, respectively) from the error on day 2 (M ⫽ 3.14; SE ⫽0.39). Similar results were obtained for the correlation measure.
The correlation on day 3 (M ⫽ 0.948; SE ⫽ 0.021) and the correlation on day 4 (M ⫽ 0.942; SE ⫽ 0.022) were both not significantly different (F(1,5) ⫽ 0.17, p ⫽ 0.702 and F(1,5) ⫽ 0.82, p ⫽0.406, respectively) from the correlation on day 2 (M ⫽ 0.939;
SE ⫽ 0.021). For the test group, the area on day 3 (M ⫽ 3.39; SE ⫽0.31) and the area on day 4 (M ⫽ 3.09; SE ⫽ 0.39) were both notsignificantly different (F(1,8) ⫽ 0.002, p ⫽ 0.967 and F(1,8) ⫽ 0.64,
p ⫽ 0.448, respectively) from the error on day 2 (M ⫽ 3.37; SE ⫽0.23). The correlation on day 3 (M ⫽ 0.953; SE ⫽ 0.013) and thecorrelation on day 4 (M ⫽ 0.960; SE ⫽ 0.008) were both notsignificantly different (F(1,8) ⫽ 0.15, p ⫽ 0.712 and F(1,8) ⫽ 1.51,
p ⫽ 0.254, respectively) than the correlation on day 2 (M ⫽ 0.948;
SE ⫽ 0.009). These results indicate that the washout trials wereeffective in removing anterograde effects.
Subjects in the control group, who experienced the same force
field (A) on days 2 and 4 and a full session of null trials on day 3,
did not show retention of learning on day 4. The initial area on
day 4 (M ⫽ 6.0; SE ⫽ 0.63) was not significantly different (F(1,5) ⫽2.1; p ⫽ 0.21) from that on day 2 (M ⫽ 7.3; SE ⫽ 0.93). This lackof retention was also shown by the correlation measure. The
initial correlation (again averaged over the second and third
blocks) on day 4 (M ⫽ 0.854; SE ⫽ 0.024) was not significantly
different (F(1,5) ⫽ 3.3; p ⫽ 0.13) from that on day 2 (M ⫽ 0.78;
SE ⫽ 0.044). Subjects in the test group, who experienced the
opposing force field (B) instead of the null trials on day 3, also
showed no retention on day 4 compared with day 2. The initialarea on day 4 (M ⫽ 8.1; SE ⫽ 0.78) was no different (F(1,8) ⫽ 0.53;
p ⫽ 0.49) than on day 2 (M ⫽ 7.7; SE ⫽ 0.62). Again, this lack ofretention was also shown by the correlation measure. The initialcorrelation on day 4 (M ⫽ 0.86; SE ⫽ 0.02) was not significantly
different (F(1,8) ⫽ 0.06; p ⫽ 0.82) than on day 2 (M ⫽ 0.851; SE ⫽0.014).
The results of experiment 6 not only failed to replicate previous studies showing independent learning of opposing velocitydependent force fields separated by 1 day but also showed that an
extended session of null trials could abolish previous learning.
That is, not only did learning the opposite force field interferewith learning, practice under normal conditions without forcesin the same task also interfered.

Discussion
We have shown that when people adapt to successive and opposing sensorimotor transformations, they fail to consolidate learning of the first even when the two transformations or tasks are
separated by ⱖ24 hr. That is, when retested on the first task,
performance was no better than when they first encountered thetask, and thus they failed to exhibit retention of learning. This
result held for both visuomotor rotations and force fields (bothCaithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671 • 8669

new memories transfer from an initial active state to an inactive state but then canbe returned to the active state whenneeded. Importantly, when reactivated,these memories can be modified and thenrestored in their modified form to the inactive state. Our results are consistent with
the idea that, when people successively encounter opposing transformations (A thenB) of the same type (e.g., visuomotor rotations or force fields), memories related to
A are reactivated and then modified while
adapting to B. Memories related to A are,likewise, reactivated and modified evenwhen null trials are experienced after A. In
other words, when people perform thesame reaching task that they have previously performed in the same apparatus,
they may recall or reactivate motor memories developed from that previous experience without distinguishing between opposing transformations or even between
perturbation and null trials. Moreover, theconcept of active and inactive states is consistent with the lack of interference seen in
our control conditions in which subjects
perform A, followed later by A with no inFigure 6. Adaptation to velocity-dependent force fields with the arm supported. Curves in the left panels show mean area
enclosed by the hand path as a function of block on different days. Curves in the right panels show the vector correlation measure tervening task. That is, merely moving(see Materials and Methods for details) as a function of block on different days. Curves to the left of the dashed vertical line show around and interacting with the world beperformance in null trials performed at the start of each session. The height of the shaded areas represents ⫾1 SE. The top panel tween the two sessions may be insufficientshows results for the control group who adapted to the same force field A on days 2 and 4 and experienced a full set of null trials to transfer the memory of A from an inacon day 3. The bottom panel shows results for the test group who adapted to A on days 2 and 4 and the opposing force field B on day tive to active state.
3. Both groups trained on a full set of null trials on day 1 (data not shown).
The ability to reactivate and modify
memories enables skill improvement overposition and velocity dependent) applied to the hand, two commultiple practice sessions. For example, if you were to sign up for
monly used tasks in studies of human motor adaptation. Not onlya series of tennis lessons to be taken once per week, you would
did subjects fail to retain learning, in several experiments theirwant to be able to recall (at least some of) what you had learned
performance on retest was worse than on the first test. Moreover,the previous week, improve on this learning, and then restore thefailure to consolidate learning was seen not only when subjects
improved version for subsequent recall. It would presumably besubsequently performed the opposing task but also when theyboth inefficient and potentially detrimental to store multiple,
performed an equivalent, and large, number of null trials (experprotected memories pertaining to previous skill levels. Althoughiment 6).
this reactivation strategy may be detrimental in the current exIt has been suggested that poor initial performance on theperiments using opposing transformations, it would likely be adretest of A in the ABA paradigm may result from anterograde
vantageous when the task being mastered stays the same or beinterference of B on the second experience of A, rather than retcomes elaborated across sessions.
rograde interference (Miall et al., 2004). That is, this poor perforRecent studies have examined motor memory consolidation
mance could simply arise because subjects expect the opposing
in the context of sequence learning (Goedert and Willingham,transformation B when retested on A. If we assume that only
2002; Walker et al., 2003). Using a serial reaction time task thatanterograde interference is at play, then we should see retention
measures implicit learning of sequences, Goedert and Willingof learning once the effects of this interference are washed out byham (2002) found complete interference between different seadding null trials at the start of each session. However, retention
quences (A and B) experienced 24 hr apart. That is, the usualof A was still not observed when these washout trials were inreduction in reaction time seen when a given sequence (A) is
cluded. This result, which is consistent with a recent report on
experienced on day 1 and day 3 was not observed when sequence
visuomotor learning (Krakauer et al., 2003) and which we have
B was experienced on the intervening day. Although this result
shown for both visuomotor and force-field learning, argues forsuggests that sequence A was not consolidated within 24 hr, these
the presence of retrograde interference.
researchers did not include a washout period (training with ranOur results clearly disagree with the notion that motor memdom sequences) and so did not control for possible anterogradeories, at least of novel sensorimotor transformations, undergo ainterference effects.
consolidation period after which they are protected against new
Using a finger-tapping task in which subjects were required tolearning. Instead, they are consistent with the emerging view that
continuously press a sequence of four buttons mapped onto theemphasizes active and inactive memory states rather than labile
fingertips of one hand, Walker et al. (2003) showed that if suband consolidated states [Lewis, 1979; for recent reviews, see
jects practice two different sequences (A and B) 24 hr apart, reNader et al. (2000) and Nader (2003)]. According to this view,
tention of skilled performance on A (as judged by movement

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning

8670 • J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671

speed) is not interfered with. However, if, on day 2, subjects
practice (and hence recall) A before performing B, then retentionof skilled performance on A is not observed. They suggested
that the rehearsal of A on day 2 transforms the memory for A
into a labile state that is vulnerable to interference from training on B.
The apparent discrepancy between the results of Walker et al.
(2003) and our own (i.e., the dependence of retrograde interference on rehearsal of A immediately before performing B) may be
attributable to differences in contextual priming. Whereas in thefinger-tapping task, rehearsal is required to reactivate memory
related to A, in the reaching task we examined, the experimental
context (i.e., the apparatus and task) appeared to be sufficient.
Evidence for such contextual priming in the reaching task comesfrom the anterograde interference we observed in washout trials(experiments 2 and 6). The anterograde interference suggests that
subjects reactivated memory of the previous force-field or visuomotor rotation when placed back in the same context and task. In
any event, both our results and those of Walker et al. (2003)
challenge the notion of protected motor memories.
It is unclear to us why our results are discrepant with thoseobserved in previous studies on learning opposing velocitydependent force fields (Brashers-Krug et al., 1996; Shadmehr andBrashers-Krug, 1997). First, it is worth emphasizing that the magnitude of the effects previously reported is quite small. Althoughthese studies report some retention for force field A (which increased with the time period between experiencing force fields A
and B), retention was far from complete even when A and B wereseparated by 24 hr (Shadmehr and Brashers-Krug, 1997). That is,
the level of retention did not reach the level observed in control
subjects who did not adapt to force field B. In an effort to identify
the source of the discrepancy, we progressively altered a numberof factors, across experiments, to more closely match the conditions used by the previous studies. These factors included theorientation of the arm (horizontal vs natural), the movement task
(point to point vs center, out and back), the type of force field(position dependent vs velocity dependent), and control of anterograde interference effects (washout trials vs no washout trials). We also used several different dependent measures of performance, including the same correlation measure used in theprevious work. However, in no case were we able to find evidenceof consolidation of A when followed by B 24 hr later. It may bethat subtle differences between the protocols used in the current
and previous studies account for the discrepancy in the results.
For example, in our experiments, participants received visualfeedback about hand position but could not see their arm,
whereas in the previous experiments, subjects could see theirarm. Another possibility is that subjects in the previous experiments improved the timing of their movements across sessions
and that this led to an improvement in the correlation measurethat is sensitive to both spatial and temporal features of the trajectory. Nevertheless, although it may be possible to demonstrate
small levels of consolidation for learning opposing tasks, we conclude that the effect is not robust.
Using visuomotor rotations and an AABA paradigm,
Krakauer et al. (2003) have recently reported that, with extended
training on A before (less extensive) training on B, full retentionof A is observed. However, it is unclear at present whether thisretention is attributable to true consolidation or insufficienttraining on B given the over-learning of A.
Finally, we would stress that the modifiability of motor memories, or lack of consolidation, reported here is presumably task
specific. In particular, the interference we observed between op-

posing visuomotor or dynamic perturbations does not imply
that, with sufficient changes in the task or task environment,interference cannot be attenuated or eliminated (Wang and Sainburg, 2003; Osu et al., 2004). A key question for future studies is
to understand the conditions that lead to previously stored memories being recalled and potentially modified.

AppendixHere, we provide the vector correlation measure proposed by
Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi (1994). For two scalars, measures x
and y, we can compute the standard correlation coefficient asfollows:

Corr 共 x,y 兲 ⫽Cov 共 x,y 兲冑Var 共 x 兲 Var 共 y 兲(1)where Cov(x,y) ⫽ E(xy) ⫺ E(x)E( y), Var(x) ⫽ E(x 2) ⫺ [E(x)] 2,
Var( y) ⫽ E( y 2) ⫺ [E( y)] 2, and E() represents the expected value
or mean of the measure in the bracket. To compute a correlation
coefficient between two vector measures, x and y, we replace
multiplications in the above definition with dot products ⵺ togive the following:

Corr 共 x,y兲 ⫽Cov共x,y兲冑Var共x兲Var共y兲(2)where Cov(x,y) ⫽ E(x 䡠 y) ⫺ E(x) 䡠 E(y), Var(x) ⫽ E(x 䡠 x) ⫺E(x) 䡠 E(x), Var(y) ⫽ E(y 䡠 y) ⫺ E(y) 䡠 E(y).
This method corrects a typographical error in the formulationin the appendix of Shadmehr and Mussa-Ivaldi (1994), in which
their definition of the SD of the vector measure was incorrect.
Specifically, their definition of the SD of a vector measure, U, was␴( U) ⫽ E(储U ⫺ E( U)储) 1/2 and should instead be ␴( U) ⫽ E(储U ⫺E( U)储 2) 1/2, where 储U储 ⫽ (U 䡠 U )1/2.
The Matlab code that performs the vector correlation is given
below in which u and v are two n-by-2 matrices representing two
different velocity profiles. The columns of the matrices are thetwo components of the two-dimensional velocity, and the rows
represent n velocities sampled over the duration of the movement.
mean_u ⫽ mean(u);mean_v ⫽ mean(v);cov_uv ⫽ mean(dot(u,v,2)) ⫺ dot(mean_u,mean_v);
var_u ⫽ mean(dot(u,u,2)) ⫺ dot(mean_u,mean_u);
var_v ⫽ mean(dot(v,v,2)) ⫺ dot(mean_v,mean_v);
corr_uv ⫽ cov_uv/sqrt(var_u*var_v).

References

Bock O, Schneider S, Bloomberg J (2001) Conditions for interference versus
facilitation during sequential sensorimotor adaptation. Exp Brain Res
138:359 –365.
Brashers-Krug T, Shadmehr R, Bizzi E (1996) Consolidation in human motor memory. Nature 382:252–255.
Goedert KM, Willingham DB (2002) Patterns of interference in sequencelearning and prism adaptation inconsistent with the consolidation hypothesis. Learn Mem 9:279 –292.
Gomi H, Kawato M (1996) Equilibrium-point control hypothesis examinedby measured arm stiffness during multijoint movement. Science
272:117–120.
Goodbody SJ, Wolpert DM (1998) Temporal and amplitude generalizationin motor learning. J Neurophysiol 79:1825–1838.
Krakauer JW, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (1999) Independent learning of internal
models for kinematic and dynamic control of reaching. Nat Neurosci
2:1026 –1031.
Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomo-

Caithness et al. • Failure to Consolidate Sensorimotor Learning
tor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20:8916 – 8924.
Krakauer J, Ghilardi M, Silberstein G, Ghez C (2003) Interference or consolidation? It depends on how much you learn initially. Soc Neurosci
Abstr 29:822.819.
Lewis DJ (1979) Psychobiology of active and inactive memory. Psychol Bull
86:1054 –1083.
Miall RC, Jenkinson N, Kulkarni K (2004) Adaptation to rotated visualfeedback: a re-examination of motor interference. Exp Brain Res
154:201–210.
Muellbacher W, Ziemann U, Wissel J, Dang N, Kofler M, Facchini S, Boroojerdi B, Poewe W, Hallett M (2002) Early consolidation in humanprimary motor cortex. Nature 415:640 – 644.
Nader K (2003) Memory traces unbound. Trends Neurosci 26:65–72.
Nader K, Schafe GE, LeDoux JE (2000) The labile nature of consolidation
theory. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:216 –219.
Osu R, Hirai S, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2004) Random presentation enables
subjects to adapt to two opposing forces on the hand. Nat Neurosci
7:111–112.
Scott SH, Kalaska JF (1995) Changes in motor cortex activity during reach-

J. Neurosci., October 6, 2004 • 24(40):8662– 8671 • 8671
ing movements with similar hand paths but different arm postures. J
Neurophysiol 73:2563–2567.
Shadmehr R, Brashers-Krug T (1997) Functional stages in the formation ofhuman long-term motor memory. J Neurosci 17:409 – 419.
Shadmehr R, Holcomb HH (1997) Neural correlates of motor memory
consolidation. Science 277:821– 825.
Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi F (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics
during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14:5:3208 –3224.
Tong C, Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR (2002) Kinematics and dynamics are notrepresented independently in motor working memory: evidence from aninterference study. J Neurosci 22:1108 –1113.
Walker MP, Brakefield T, Hobson JA, Strickgold R (2003) Dissociable
stages of human memory consolidation and reconsolidation. Nature
425:616 – 620.
Wang J, Sainburg RL (2003) Limitations in interlimb transfer of visuomotor
rotations. Exp. Brain Res 149:520 –526.
Wigmore V, Tong C, Flanagan JR (2002) Visuomotor rotations of varying
size and direction compete for a single internal model in motor working
memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 28:447– 457.