4.7 Article

Cerebellar Encoding of Multiple Candidate Error Cues in the Service of Motor Learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 34, 期 30, 页码 9880-9890

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5114-13.2014

关键词

cerebellum; climbing fiber; error signal; eye movement; motor learning; Purkinje cell

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health [R01 DC004154, R01 NS072406, F31 DC008078]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Fellowship for Medical Students
  3. Stanford Medical Scientist Training Program
  4. Stanford Graduate Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For learning to occur through trial and error, the nervous system must effectively detect and encode performance errors. To examine this process, we designed a set of oculomotor learning tasks with more than one visual object providing potential error cues, as would occur in a natural visual scene. A task-relevant visual target and a task-irrelevant visual background both influenced vestibulo-ocular reflex learning in rhesus monkeys. Thus, motor learning does not identify a single error cue based on behavioral relevance, but can be simultaneously influenced by more than one cue. Moreover, the relative weighting of the different cues could vary. If the speed of the visual target's motion on the retina was low (<< 1 degrees/s), background motion dominated learning, but if target speed was high, the effects of the background were suppressed. The target and background motion had similar, nonlinear effects on the putative neural instructive signals carried by cerebellar climbing fibers, but with a stronger influence of the background on the climbing fibers than on learning. In contrast, putative neural instructive signals carried by the simple spikes of Purkinje cells were influenced solely by the motion of the visual target. Because they are influenced by different cues during training, joint control of learning by the climbing fibers and Purkinje cells may expand the learning capacity of the cerebellar circuit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据