Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada; Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Christopher J Forgaard
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada; Robarts Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada; Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, United States
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.
