4.8 Article

Evolving Models of Pavlovian Conditioning: Cerebellar Cortical Dynamics in Awake Behaving Mice

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 1977-1988

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.10.057

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Organization for Medical Sciences program of the European Community [ZonMw Top-Go 912.100.00]
  2. Life Sciences program of the European Community [ALW 854.10.004]
  3. Senter program of the European Community [Neurobsik FES 0908 min VWS]
  4. ERC-advanced program of the European Community [294775]
  5. Cerebnet program of the European Community [238686 ITN]
  6. C7 program of the European Community [238214 ITN]
  7. Wellcome Trust [098881/Z/12/Z]
  8. Wellcome Trust [098881/Z/12/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [294775] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three decades of electrophysiological research on cerebellar cortical activity underlying Pavlovian conditioning have expanded our understanding of motor learning in the brain. Purkinje cell simple spike suppression is considered to be crucial in the expression of conditional blink responses (CRs). However, trial-by-trial quantification of this link in awake behaving animals is lacking, and current hypotheses regarding the underlying plasticity mechanisms have diverged from the classical parallel fiber one to the Purkinje cell synapse LTD hypothesis. Here, we establish that acquired simple spike suppression, acquired conditioned stimulus (CS)-related complex spike responses, and molecular layer interneuron (MLI) activity predict the expression of CRs on a trial-by-trial basis using awake behaving mice. Additionally, we show that two independent transgenic mouse mutants with impaired MLI function exhibit motor learning deficits. Our findings suggest multiple cerebellar cortical plasticity mechanisms underlying simple spike suppression, and they implicate the broader involvement of the olivocerebellar module within the interstimulus interval.

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

4.8
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