4.7 Review

The super-learning hypothesis: Integrating learning processes across cortex, cerebellum and basal ganglia

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 100, 期 -, 页码 19-34

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.02.008

关键词

Cortex; Cerebellum; Basal ganglia; Unsupervised learning; Supervised learning; Reinforcement learning; Super-learning; Interplay between learning mechanisms; System-level neuroscience; Cortical-subcortical hierarchies; Neuromodulation; Dopamine; Serotonin; Noradrenaline; Acetylcholine

资金

  1. EU FET Open project GOAL-Robots - Goal-based Open-ended Autonomous Learning Robots [713010]
  2. National Science Foundation [BCS-1343544]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite wide evidence suggesting anatomical and functional interactions between cortex, cerebellum and basal ganglia, the learning processes operating within them -often viewed as respectively unsupervised, supervised and reinforcement learning- are studied in isolation, neglecting their strong interdependence. We discuss how those brain areas form a highly integrated system combining different learning mechanisms into an effective super-learning process supporting the acquisition of flexible motor behaviour. The term super-learning does not indicate a new learning paradigm. Rather, it refers to the fact that different learning mechanisms act in synergy as they: (a) affect neural structures often relying on the widespread action of neuromodulators; (b) act within various stages of cortical/subcortical pathways that are organised in pipeline to support multiple sensation-toaction mappings operating at different levels of abstraction; (c) interact through the reciprocal influence of the output compartments of different brain structures, most notably in the cerebello-cortical and basal ganglia-cortical loops. Here we articulate this new hypothesis and discuss empirical evidence supporting it by specifically referring to motor adaptation and sequence learning.

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