4.4 Review

Distinct neural circuits for control of movement vs. holding still

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 4, 页码 1431-1460

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00840.2016

关键词

brain stem; cerebellum; motor cortex; reaching; saccades

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [5R01NS078311]
  2. Office of Naval Research [N00014-15-1-2312]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In generating a point-to-point movement, the brain does more than produce the transient commands needed to move the body part; it also produces the sustained commands that are needed to hold the body part at its destination. In the oculomotor system, these functions are mapped onto two distinct circuits: a premotor circuit that specializes in generating the transient activity that displaces the eyes and a neural integrator that transforms that transient input into sustained activity that holds the eyes. Different parts of the cerebellum adaptively control the motor commands during these two phases: the oculomotor vermis participates in fine tuning the transient neural signals that move the eyes, monitoring the activity of the premotor circuit via efference copy, whereas the flocculus participates in controlling the sustained neural signals that hold the eyes, monitoring the activity of the neural integrator. Here, I review the oculomotor literature and then ask whether this separation of control between moving and holding is a design principle that may be shared with other modalities of movement. To answer this question, I consider neurophysiological and psychophysical data in various species during control of head movements, arm movements, and locomotion, focusing on the brain stem, motor cortex, and hippocampus, respectively. The review of the data raises the possibility that across modalities of motor control, circuits that are responsible for producing commands that change the sensory state of a body part are distinct from those that produce commands that maintain that sensory state.

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

4.4
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