Cerebellum: Connections and Functions

Glickstein, Mitchell; Doron, Karl W.

doi:10.1007/s12311-008-0074-4

Cited by 155 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the latter two cases, recorded cortical neurons fired in advance to the onset of the respective vibrissal or eyelid CRs. From a hodological point of view, selective motorrelated cortical areas seem to project both to the cerebellum and to the facial nucleus as shown with different neuroanatomical and electrophysiological procedures Manvelyan, 1984, 1987;Morcuende et al, 2002;Ramnani et al, 2006;Glickstein and Doron, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Associations in the Cerebellar–Motoneuron Network during Motor Learning

Sánchez-Campusano¹,

Gruart²,

Delgado‐García³

2009

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed here true causal directionalities in cerebellar-motoneuron (MN) network associations during the classical conditioning of eyelid responses. For this, the firing activities of identified facial MNs and cerebellar interpositus (IP) nucleus neurons were recorded during the acquisition of this type of associative learning in alert behaving cats. Simultaneously, the eyelid conditioned response (CR) and the EMG activity of the orbicularis oculi (OO) muscle were recorded. Nonlinear association analysis and time-dependent causality method allowed us to determine the asymmetry, time delays, direction in coupling, and functional interdependences between neuronal recordings and learned motor responses. We concluded that the functional nonlinear association between the IP neurons and OO muscle activities was bidirectional and asymmetric, and the time delays in the two directions of coupling always lagged the start of the CR. Additionally, the strength of coupling depended inversely on the level of expression of eyeblink CRs, whereas causal inferences were significantly dependent on the phase information status. In contrast, the functional association between OO MNs and OO muscle activities was unidirectional and quasisymmetric, and the time delays in coupling were always of opposed signs. Moreover, information transfer in cerebellar-MN network associations during the learning process required a "driving common source" that induced the mere "modulating coupling" of the IP nucleus with the final common pathway for the eyelid motor system. Thus, it can be proposed that the cerebellum is always looking back and reevaluating its own function, using the information acquired in the process, to play a modulatingreinforcing role in motor learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Associations in the Cerebellar–Motoneuron Network during Motor Learning

Sánchez-Campusano¹,

Gruart²,

Delgado‐García³

2009

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has long been known that the cerebellum is involved in sensory -motor control and learning of motor skills [72,73]. The relative expansion of the cerebellum in primates together with stereopsis and elaboration of the visual system [19,20,68] presumably underpins primates' fine visuo-motor control and manual dexterity.…”

Section: Cognitive Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum

Barton

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

176

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much attention has focused on the dramatic expansion of the forebrain, particularly the neocortex, as the neural substrate of cognitive evolution. However, though relatively small, the cerebellum contains about four times more neurons than the neocortex. I show that commonly used comparative measures such as neocortex ratio underestimate the contribution of the cerebellum to brain evolution. Once differences in the scaling of connectivity in neocortex and cerebellum are accounted for, a marked and general pattern of correlated evolution of the two structures is apparent. One deviation from this general pattern is a relative expansion of the cerebellum in apes and other extractive foragers. The confluence of these comparative patterns, studies of ape foraging skills and social learning, and recent evidence on the cognitive neuroscience of the cerebellum, suggest an important role for the cerebellum in the evolution of the capacity for planning, execution and understanding of complex behavioural sequences—including tool use and language. There is no clear separation between sensory–motor and cognitive specializations underpinning such skills, undermining the notion of executive control as a distinct process. Instead, I argue that cognitive evolution is most effectively understood as the elaboration of specialized systems for embodied adaptive control.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that eye movements explain much of the cerebellar activity associated with cognitive tasks in neuroimaging experiments and that these areas are connected with the frontal eye fields (Glickstein and Doron 2008). Although the cerebellar cortex does indeed have connections with the frontal eye fields, these are in addition to a number of other prefrontal regions that connect with the cerebellum, but make no known contributions to the kinematics of eye movements.…”

Section: Differences In Processing First-and Second-order Rules In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cerebellum and Cognition: Evidence for the Encoding of Higher Order Rules

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Converging anatomical and functional evidence suggests that the cerebellum processes both motor and nonmotor information originating from the primary motor cortex and prefrontal cortex, respectively. However, it has not been established whether the cerebellum only processes prefrontal information where rules specify actions or whether the cerebellum processes any form of prefrontal information no matter how abstract. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we distinguish between two competing hypotheses: (1) activity within prefrontal-projecting cerebellar lobules (Crus I and II) will only be evoked by rules that specify action (i.e. first-order rules; arbitrary S-R mappings) and (2) activity will be evoked in these lobules by both first-order rules and second-order rules that govern the application of lower order rules. The results showed that prefrontal-projecting cerebellar lobules Crus I and II were commonly activated by processing both first-and secondorder rules. We demonstrate for the first time that cerebellar circuits engage both first-and second-order rules and in doing so show that the cerebellum can contribute to cognitive control independent of motor control.

show abstract

Cerebellum: Connections and Functions

Cited by 155 publications

References 23 publications

Dynamic Associations in the Cerebellar–Motoneuron Network during Motor Learning

Dynamic Associations in the Cerebellar–Motoneuron Network during Motor Learning

Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum

Cerebellum and Cognition: Evidence for the Encoding of Higher Order Rules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About