Figure 4.

The Effect of Perceptual Training on Motor Learning Lasts for Days (A) A subset of participants returned about 8 days later and repeated the experiment, minus perceptual training. (B) Perceptual boundary differences were present 8 days after training. Error bars represent +/− 1 SE. (C) Produced F1 frequency for “head” was normalized to baseline utterances from Day 1. Subjects compensated for an F1 increase by decreasing the frequency of produced F1 (trials 46 to 180; eight days later, trials 271 to 405). The group that had their perceptual boundary shifted towards “head” showed greater learning-related after-effects eight days after training (p < 0.02). Error clouds represent +/− 1 SE, and the learning curves join blocks of five utterances. (D) 20 new female subjects participated in Experiment 2. They experienced baseline production, perceptual tests, and altered feedback 2 days after perceptual training. (E) 10 subjects had their perceptual boundary shifted towards “head” (red data), and 10 subjects had their boundary shifted towards “had”. Alterations in the perceptual boundary were present 2 days after training (p < 0.05). Error clouds represent +/− 1 SE, and the learning curves join blocks of five utterances. (F) Produced F1 frequency was normalized to Day 1 baseline measures. After a second session of baseline production two days later, subjects compensated for an increase in F1 by decreasing the frequency of produced F1 (trials 91 to 215). Subjects who had their perceptual boundary shifted towards “head” compensated more (p < 0.05) for altered auditory feedback. They also showed greater compensation-related after-effects (p < 0.01). Error clouds represent +/− 1 SE.