Fixing the Structure Does Not Rewrite the Movement: Neuroplasticity and Overwrite Algorithms (The Kuriyama Protocol, Chapter 11)

Part 16 of a series; the eleventh of fifteen chapter-by-chapter articles. Part 1: 10.5281/zenodo.23587879 · Part 2: 10.5281/zenodo.23587670 · Part 3 (v2): 10.5281/zenodo.23723510 · Part 4: 10.5281/zenodo.23609857 · Part 5: 10.5281/zenodo.23610607 · Part 6: 10.5281/zenodo.23682055 · Part 7: 10.5281/zenodo.23684537 · Part 8: 10.5281/zenodo.23684996 · Part 9: 10.5281/zenodo.23685960 · Part 10: 10.5281/zenodo.23686289 · Part 11: 10.5281/zenodo.23720048 · Part 12: 10.5281/zenodo.23723725 · Part 13: 10.5281/zenodo.23834848 · Part 14: 10.5281/zenodo.23854475 · Part 15: 10.5281/zenodo.23854843 Chapter 11 of The Kuriyama Protocol asks when the control law updates, using π_new = π_old + η·g·δ, which contains no structural term: structural repair changes the error δ but not the control law unless the gate g is open. Training rewrites the body's estimate of what it can do. Spacing practice helps early learning, with the sleep-specific contribution left open; naps can also improve motor performance. After proficiency, practice under varied conditions. Learned patterns are not erased. Errors are exaggerated rather than forbidden so the client can compare and choose. Posture is the current solution under constraints; change the constraints, not the solution. Five gaps and two small fixes found while writing: - The gate g was defined as conscious perception of error; implicit adaptation proceeds without, and even against, awareness (Mazzoni & Krakauer, 2006). Unchanged gait after joint replacement is better read as small task error. - Side differences minutes after maximal toe effort were attributed to updated self-estimates using a weeks-long training study; post-activation potentiation (Blazevich & Babault, 2019) predicts decay within minutes, separable by next-day retention. - The section rated best supported, reduced feedback frequency, lost its support: a 2022 meta-analysis found no significant effect at any time point (McKay et al., 2022). The author's Part 15 relied on the guidance hypothesis and will be corrected in a new version. - The dilution metaphor conflicts with the cited extinction literature (Bouton, 2004): old responses recover with time and context. A context-dependent competition model replaces it, adding practice in the contexts where the old pattern appears. - The exaggeration section claimed clients reported differences themselves, but two of its quotes are the instructor's statements; undirected questioning is added. - Small fixes: the nap evidence used 60–90 min naps (Nishida & Walker, 2007), so "short naps" was dropped; the claim that all multiplicative forms were rejected overreached. Five falsifiable predictions are registered (numbered 72–76, continuing the series): - P72. A sub-threshold insole asymmetry produces gait adaptation within minutes and an after-effect, even when clients report no difference. - P73. Side differences after maximal toe effort decrease substantially within 10–30 min; any next-day residual reflects updated self-estimates. - P74. After acquisition in class, the old gait pattern reappears more at home, under fatigue and under time pressure; home-context practice narrows the gap. - P75. After exaggeration with undirected questioning, clients still report the exaggerated side as harder, and one-week retention exceeds correct-only instruction. - P76. Reduced versus full feedback frequency produces no meaningful difference in one-week retention. Refutations are welcome. The author has no formal research training. Corrections will be issued as new versions, with earlier versions kept retrievable. The article body is in Japanese. An English summary, the registered predictions and the reference list are included in the document. Contact: [email protected]