4.0 Article

Stimulus generalization of conditioned eyelid responses produced without cerebellar cortex: Implications for plasticity in the cerebellar nuclei

Journal

LEARNING & MEMORY
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 346-354

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/lm.67103

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH046904, MH57051, MH46904, R01 MH057051] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Pavlovian eyelid conditioning and adaptation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex, cerebellar cortex lesions fail to completely abolish previously acquired learning, indicating an additional site of plasticity in the deep cerebellar or vestibular nucleus. Three forms of plasticity are known to occur in the deep cerebellar nuclei: formation of new synapses, plasticity at existing synapses, and changes in intrinsic excitability. Only a cell-wide increase in excitability predicts that learning should generalize broadly from a training stimulus to other stimuli capable of supporting learning, whereas the alternatives predict that learning should be relatively specific to the training stimulus. Here we show that deep nucleus plasticity, as assessed by conditioned eyelid responses produced without input from the cerebellar cortex, is relatively specific to the training conditioned stimulus (CS). We trained rabbits to a tone or light CS with periorbital stimulation as the unconditioned stimulus (US), and pharmacologically disconnected the cerebellar cortex during a posttraining generalization test. The short-latency conditioned responses unmasked by this treatment showed strong decrement along the dimension of auditory frequency and did not generalize across stimulus modalities. These results cannot be explained solely by a cell-wide increase in the excitability of deep nucleus neurons, and imply that an input-specific mechanism in the deep cerebellar nucleus operates as well.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available