Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
Rossi et al. asked whether gait adaptation is solely a matter of slow perceptual realignment or if it also involves fast/flexible stimulus-response mapping mechanisms. To test this, they conducted a series of split-belt treadmill experiments with ramped perturbations, revealing behavior indicative of a flexible, automatic stimulus-response mapping mechanism.
Strengths:
(1) The study includes a perceptual test of leg speed, which correlates with the perceptual realignment component of motor aftereffects. This indicates that there are motor performances that are not accounted for by perceptual re-alignment.
(2) They study incorporates qualitatively distinct, hypothesis-driven models of adaptation and proposes a new framework that integrates these various mechanisms.
Weaknesses:
(1) The study could benefit from considering other alternative models. As the authors noted in their discussion, while the descriptive models explain some patterns of behaviour/aftereffects, they don't currently account for how these mechanisms influence the initial learning process itself.
a. For example, the pattern of gait asymmetric might differ for perceptual realignment (a smooth, gradual process), structural learning (more erratic, involving hypothesis testing/reasoning to understand the perturbation, see (Tsay et al. 2024) for a recent review on Reasoning), and stimulus-response mapping (possibly through a reinforcement based trial-and-error approach). If not formally doing a model comparison, the manuscript might benefit from clearly laying out the behavioural predictions for how these different processes shape initial learning.
b. Related to the above, the authors noted that the absence of difference during initial learning suggests that the differences in Experiment 2 in the ramp-up phase are driven by two distinct processes: structural learning and memory-based processes. If the assumptions about initial learning are not clear, this logic of this conclusion is hard to follow.
c. The authors could also test a variant of the dual-rate state-space model with two perceptual realignment processes where the constraints on retention and learning rate are relaxed. This model would be a stronger test for two perceptual re-alignment processes: one that is flexible and another that is rigid, without mandating that one be fast learning and fast forgetting, and the other be slow learning and slow forgetting.
(2) The authors claim that stimulus-response mapping operates outside of explicit/deliberate control. While this could be true, the survey questions may have limitations that could be more clearly acknowledged.
a. Specifically, asking participants at the end of the experiments to recall their strategies may suffer from memory biases (e.g., participants may be biased by recent events, and forget about the explicit strategies early in the experiment), be susceptible to the framing of the questions (e.g., participants not being sure what the experimenter is asking and how to verbalize their own strategy), and moreover, not clear what is the category of explicit strategies one might enact here which dictates what might be considered "relevant" and "accurate".
b. The concept of perceptual realignment also suggests that participants are somewhat aware of the treadmill's changing conditions; therefore, as a thought experiment, if the authors have asked participants throughout/during the experiment whether they are trying different strategies, would they predict that some behaviour is under deliberate control?
(3) The distinction between structural and memory-based differences in the two subgroups was based on the notion that memory-based strategies increase asymmetry. However, an alternative explanation could be that unfamiliar perturbations, due to the ramping up, trigger a surprise signal that leads to greater asymmetry due to reactive corrections to prevent one's fall - not because participants are generalizing from previously learned representations (e.g., (Iturralde & Torres-Oviedo, 2019)).
Further contextualization:
Recognizing the differences in dependent variables (reaching position vs. leg speed/symmetry in walking), could the Proprioceptive/Perceptual Re-alignment model also apply to gait adaptation (Tsay et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024)? Recent reaching studies show a similar link between perception and action during motor adaptation (Tsay et al., 2021) and have proposed a model aligning with the authors' correlations between perception and action. The core signal driving implicit adaptation is the discrepancy between perceived and desired limb position, integrating forward model predictions with proprioceptive/visual feedback.
References
Iturralde, P. A., & Torres-Oviedo, G. (2019). Corrective Muscle Activity Reveals Subject-Specific Sensorimotor Recalibration. eNeuro, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0358-18.2019
Tsay, Jonathan S., Hyosub E. Kim, Samuel D. McDougle, Jordan A. Taylor, Adrian Haith, Guy Avraham, John W. Krakauer, Anne G. E. Collins, and Richard B. Ivry. 2024. "Fundamental Processes in Sensorimotor Learning: Reasoning, Refinement, and Retrieval." ELife 13 (August). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.91839.
Tsay, Jonathan S., Hyosub E. Kim, Darius E. Parvin, Alissa R. Stover, and Richard B. Ivry. 2021. "Individual Differences in Proprioception Predict the Extent of Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation." Journal of Neurophysiology, March. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00585.2020.
Tsay, Jonathan S., Hyosub Kim, Adrian M. Haith, and Richard B. Ivry. 2022. "Understanding Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation as a Process of Proprioceptive Re-Alignment." ELife 11 (August). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76639.
Zhang, Zhaoran, Huijun Wang, Tianyang Zhang, Zixuan Nie, and Kunlin Wei. 2024. "Perceptual Error Based on Bayesian Cue Combination Drives Implicit Motor Adaptation." ELife. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.94608.1.