It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Human learning varies greatly among individuals and is related to the microstructure of major white matter tracts in several learning domains, yet the impact of the existing microstructure of white matter tracts on future learning outcomes remains unclear. We employed a machine-learning model selection framework to evaluate whether existing microstructure might predict individual differences in learning a sensorimotor task, and further, if the mapping between tract microstructure and learning was selective for learning outcomes. We used diffusion tractography to measure the mean fractional anisotropy (FA) of white matter tracts in 60 adult participants who then practiced drawing a set of 40 unfamiliar symbols repeatedly using a digital writing tablet. We measured drawing learning as the slope of draw duration over the practice session and measured visual recognition learning for the symbols using an old/new 2-AFC task. Results demonstrated that tract microstructure selectively predicted learning outcomes, with left hemisphere pArc and SLF3 tracts predicting drawing learning and the left hemisphere MDLFspl predicting visual recognition learning. These results were replicated using repeat, held-out data and supported with complementary analyses. Results suggest that individual differences in the microstructure of human white matter tracts may be selectively related to future learning outcomes.
A diffusion imaging study suggests that individual differences in learning may be selectively predicted by tissue properties of major white matter tracts in the brain. In this study, the left pArc and SLF3 tracts predicted drawing learning in adults.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; McDonald, D. J. 2
; Berquist, E. 3 ; Pestilli, F. 4
1 Indiana University, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program for Neuroscience, Bloomington, USA (GRID:grid.411377.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0790 959X); Vanderbilt University, Department of Psychology and Human Development, Nashville, USA (GRID:grid.152326.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2264 7217)
2 University of British Columbia, Department of Statistics, Vancouver, Canada (GRID:grid.17091.3e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2288 9830)
3 Indiana University, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program for Neuroscience, Bloomington, USA (GRID:grid.411377.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0790 959X)
4 Indiana University, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program for Neuroscience, Bloomington, USA (GRID:grid.411377.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0790 959X); University of Texas at Austin, Department of Psychology, Center for Perceptual Systems, Center for Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience, Center for Aging Populations Sciences, Center for Learning and Memory, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924)




