Search for: All records

Abstract Humans exhibit large interindividual differences in motor learning ability. However, most previous studies have examined properties common across populations, with less emphasis on interindividual differences. We hypothesized here, based on our previous experimental and computational motor adaptation studies, that individual differences in effective learning rates between a generalist memory module that assumes environmental continuity and specialist modules that are responsive to trial-by-trial environmental changes could explain both large population-wise and individual-wise differences in dual tasks adaptation under block and random schedules. Participants adapted to two opposing force fields, either sequentially with alternating training blocks or simultaneously with random sequences. As previously reported, in the block training schedule, all participants adapted to the force field presented in a block but showed large interference in the subsequent opposing force field blocks, such that adapting to the two force fields was impossible. In contrast, in the random training schedule, participants could adapt to the two conflicting tasks simultaneously as a group; however, large interindividual variability was observed. A modified MOSAIC computational model of motor learning equipped with one generalist module and two specialist modules explained the observed behavior and variability for wide parameter ranges: when the predictions errors were large and consistent as in block schedules, the generalist module was selected to adapt quickly. In contrast, the specialist modules were selected when they more accurately predicted the changing environment than the generalist, as during random schedules; this resulted in consolidated memory specialized to each environment, but only when the ratio of learning rates of the generalist to specialists was relatively small. This dynamic selection process plays a crucial role in explaining the individual differences observed in motor learning abilities. 

Recent findings suggest that stigma and camouflaging contribute to mental health difficulties for autistic individuals, however, this evidence is largely based on UK samples. While studies have shown cross-cultural differences in levels of autism-related stigma, it is unclear whether camouflaging and mental health difficulties vary across cultures. Hence, the current study had two aims: (1) to determine whether significant relationships between autism acceptance, camouflaging, and mental health difficulties replicate in a cross-cultural sample of autistic adults, and (2) to compare these variables across cultures. To fulfil these aims, 306 autistic adults from eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States) completed a series of online questionnaires. We found that external acceptance and personal acceptance were associated with lower levels of depression but not camouflaging or stress. Higher camouflaging was associated with elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Significant differences were found across countries in external acceptance, personal acceptance, depression, anxiety, and stress, even after controlling for relevant covariates. Levels of camouflaging also differed across countries however this effect became non-significant after controlling for the covariates. These findings have significant implications, identifying priority regions for anti-stigma interventions, and highlighting countries where greater support for mental health difficulties is needed.