Studies comparing movement-related cortical potentials, post-excitatory inhibition after transcranial magnetic brain stimulation, and PET findings in normal controls and patients with cerebellar degeneration demonstrate plasticity of cerebro-cerebellar interactions and hereby support Thach's theory that the cerebellum has the ability to play a role in building behavioral context-response linkages and to build up appropriate responses from simpler constitutive elements, [THACH].

Several target articles in this BBS special issue address the topic of cerebellar and olivary functions, especially as they pertain to motor earning. Another important topic is the neural interaction between the limbic system and the cerebellum during associative learning. In this commentary we present some of our data on olivo-cerebellar and limbic-cerebellar interactions during eyeblink conditioning. [HOUK et al.; SIMPSON et al.; THACH].

PET studies using classical conditioning paradigms are reported. It is emphasized that PET studies show and not in learning paradigms. The importance of dissociating motor performance and learning deficits in human lesions studies is demonstrated in two exemplary studies. The different role of the cerebellum in adaptation of postural reflexes and learning of complex voluntary arm movements is discussed, [THACH].

For reasons I have never understood, some students of the cerebellum have been unwilling to accept the now overwhelming evidence that the cerebellum exhibits lasting synaptic plasticity and plays an essential role in some forms of learning and memory. With a few exceptions (e.g., target article by SIMPSON et al.) this is no longer the case, as is clear in the excellent target articles on cerebellar LTD and the excellent target review by HOUK et al. [CRÉPEL et al.; HOUR et (...) al.; KANO; LINDEN; SIMPSON et al.; SMITH; VINCENT]. (shrink)

In the behavioral literature on human movement, a distinction is made between the learning of parameters and the learning of new movement forms or topologies. Whereas the target articles by Thach, Smith, and Houk et al. provide evidence for cerebellar involvement in parametrization learning and adaptation, the evidence in favor of its involvement in the generation of new movement patterns is less straightforward. A case is made for focusing more attention on the latter issue in the future. This would directly (...) help to bridge the gap between current neurophysiological approaches to the role of the cerebellum and the behavioral expressions of human motor learning, [HOUK et al.; SMITH; THACH]. (shrink)

In response to several requests from commentators, an unambiguous definition of time-varying joint stiffness is provided. However, since a variety of different operations can be used to measure stiffness, a problem for quantification admittedly still exists. Several commentaries pointed out the advantage of controlling joint stiffness in optimizing the speed-accuracy trade-off known as Fittss law. The deficit in rapid reciprocal movements and the impact on joint stiffness inhibition caused by cerebellar lesions is clarified here, as the target article was apparently (...) misinterpreted by some readers. In response to the challenge that there is little consensus among cerebellar physiologists, several areas of tacit agreement with other theories of cerebellar function are enumerated. An alternative interpretation of studies showing a transient activation of the cerebellum in motor learning is suggested. Finally, the relationship between the command signals generated by supraspinal centers such as the cerebellum and spinal interneuron networks controlling muscle synergies is discussed. (shrink)

Behavior that solves a problem is distinguished by the fact that it changes another part of the solver's behavior and is strengthened when it does so. Problem solving typically involves the construction of discriminative stimuli. Verbal responses produce especially useful stimuli, because they affect other people. As a culture formulates maxims, laws, grammar, and science, its members behave more effectively without direct or prolonged contact with the contingencies thus formulated. The culture solves problems for its members, and does so by (...) transmitting the verbal discriminative stimuli called rules. Induction, deduction, and the construction of models are ways of producing rules. Behavior that solves a problem may result from direct shaping by contingencies or from rules constructed either by the problem solver or by others. Because different controlling variables are involved, contingency-shaped behavior is never exactly like rule-governed behavior. The distinction must take account of a system which establishes certain contingencies of reinforcement, such as some part of the natural environment, a piece of equipment, or a verbal community; the behavior shaped and maintained by these contingencies; rules, derived from the contingencies, which specify discriminative stimuli, responses, and consequences, and the behavior occasioned by the rules. (shrink)

Several themes can be identified in the commentaries. The first is that the climbing fibers may have more than one function; the second is that the climbing fibers provide sensory rather than motor signals. We accept the possibility that climbing fibers may have more than one function consequence(s)’ in the title. Until we know more about the function of the inhibitory input to the inferior olive from the cerebellar nuclei, which are motor structures, we have to keep open the possibility (...) that the climbing fiber signals can be a combination of sensory and motor signals. (shrink)