4.5 Article

The roles of the cerebellum and basal ganglia in timing and error prediction

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1609-1619

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02212.x

关键词

attention; fMRI; predictability; striatum; switching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence that the cerebellum and the basal ganglia are activated during the performance of cognitive and attention tasks challenges the prevailing view of their primary function in motor control. The specific roles of the basal ganglia and the cerebellum in cognition, however, have been difficult to identify. At least three functional hypotheses regarding their roles have been proposed. The first hypothesis suggests that their main function is to switch attentional set. The second hypothesis states that they provide error signals regarding stimuli or rewards. The third hypothesis is that they operate as an internal timing system, providing a precise representation of temporal information. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we tested these three hypotheses using a task-switching experiment with a 2 x 2 factorial design varying timing (random relative to fixed) and task order (unpredictable relative to predictable). This design allowed us to test whether switching between tasks, timing irregularity and/or task order unpredictability activate the basal ganglia and/or the cerebellum. We show that the cerebellum is primarily activated with timing irregularity while the anterior striatum is activated with task order unpredictability, supporting their distinctive roles in two forms of readjustment. Task order unpredictability alone, independent of reward delivery, is sufficient to induce striatal activation. In addition, activation of the cerebellum and basal ganglia were not specific to switching attention because these regions were both activated during switching between tasks and during the simultaneous maintenance of two tasks without switching between them.

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

4.5
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