Search for a command to run...
We thank Macpherson et al1 for their interest in our manuscript and the editors for the opportunity to respond. We hope that the continued conversation about motor learning in physical therapy will lead to a comprehensive understanding of what is currently known about this important topic and, ultimately, produce improved patient outcomes. In this response, we aim to provide clarity about the different mechanisms of motor learning and how they can be used to guide physical therapist practice and education. First, we agree with Macpherson et al that these 4 motor learning mechanisms (use-dependent, instructive, reinforcement, and sensorimotor adaptation-based motor learning) likely co-occur to drive changes in movement, and the relative weight of each can change depending on the task constraints or stage of practice. However, current evidence suggests that these mechanisms are distinct from one another (for examples, see Roemmich et al2 and Diedrichsen et al3) and engage networks in different areas of the brain (for examples, see Therrien et al4 and Slachevsky et al5). Importantly, this means the amount each contributes to a sustained change in movement control can be manipulated and reweighted by altering the task structure. This multiplicity of mechanisms for motor learning might be a powerful tool for physical therapists across areas of practice, but we must first understand the rules governing how each of them operates.