4.6 Review

Modeling the Cerebellar Microcircuit: New Strategies for a Long Standing Issue

期刊

FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fncel.2016.00176

关键词

cerebellum; cellular neurophysiology; microcircuit; computational modeling; motor learning; neural plasticity; spiking neural network; neurorobotics

资金

  1. Human Brain Project [HBP-604102]
  2. HBP-Regione Lombardia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cerebellar microcircuit has been the work bench for theoretical and computational modeling since the beginning of neuroscientific research. The regular neural architecture of the cerebellum inspired different solutions to the long-standing issue of how its circuitry could control motor learning and coordination. Originally, the cerebellar network was modeled using a statistical-topological approach that was later extended by considering the geometrical organization of local microcircuits. However, with the advancement in anatomical and physiological investigations, new discoveries have revealed an unexpected richness of connections, neuronal dynamics and plasticity, calling for a change in modeling strategies, so as to include the multitude of elementary aspects of the network into an integrated and easily updatable computational framework. Recently, biophysically accurate realistic models using a bottom-up strategy accounted for both detailed connectivity and neuronal non-linear membrane dynamics. In this perspective review, we will consider the state of the art and discuss how these initial efforts could be further improved. Moreover, we will consider how embodied neurorobotic models including spiking cerebellar networks could help explaining the role and interplay of distributed forms of plasticity. We envisage that realistic modeling, combined with closed-loop simulations, will help to capture the essence of cerebellar computations and could eventually be applied to neurological diseases and neurorobotic control systems.

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

4.6
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