Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19144967›Full record

ArticleLearning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)2009

Interactions between prefrontal cortex and cerebellum revealed by trace eyelid conditioning.

Brian E Kalmbach, Tatsuya Ohyama, Joy C Kreider, Frank Riusech, Michael D Mauk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Stimulus Contingency and Task Context Encoding within the Anterior Cingulate-Amygdala-Cerebellum Associative Learning Network.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Medial Auditory Thalamus Is Necessary for Expression of Auditory Trace Eyelid Conditioning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  19. Cerebellar Processing Common to Delay and Trace Eyelid Conditioning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brian E KalmbachCenter for Learning and Memory, The University of Texas at Austin, 78712, USA. brian@clm.utexas.edu
Tatsuya Ohyama
Joy C Kreider
Frank Riusech
Michael D Mauk

Funding

REVERSIBLE LESIONS--CEREBELLAR MECHANISMS MOTOR LEARNINGR01MH046904 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MAUK, MICHAEL D · 1997 to 2016
$5.5M
Forebrain-Cerebellum Interactions in Trace ConditioningR01MH074006 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MAUK, MICHAEL D · 2005 to 2015
$3.3M
USING CLASSICAL CONDITIONING TO STUDY THE CEREBELLUMR29MH046904 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MAUK, MICHAEL D · 1992 to 1996
–
NIMH NIH HHS MH46904NIMH NIH HHS MH74006NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH046904NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eyelid conditioning has proven useful for analysis of learning and computation in the cerebellum. Two variants, delay and trace conditioning, differ only by the relative timing of the training stimuli. Despite the subtlety of this difference, trace eyelid conditioning is prevented by lesions of the cerebellum, hippocampus, or medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), whereas delay eyelid conditioning is prevented by cerebellar lesions and is largely unaffected by forebrain lesions. Here we test whether these lesion results can be explained by two assertions: (1) Cerebellar learning requires temporal overlap between the mossy fiber inputs activated by the tone conditioned stimulus (CS) and the climbing fiber inputs activated by the reinforcing unconditioned stimulus (US), and therefore (2) trace conditioning requires activity that outlasts the presentation of the CS in a subset of mossy fibers separate from those activated directly by the CS. By use of electrical stimulation of mossy fibers as a CS, we show that cerebellar learning during trace eyelid conditioning requires an input that persists during the stimulus-free trace interval. By use of reversible inactivation experiments, we provide evidence that this input arises from the mPFC and arrives at the cerebellum via a previously unidentified site in the pontine nuclei. In light of previous PFC recordings in various species, we suggest that trace eyelid conditioning involves an interaction between the persistent activity of delay cells in mPFC-a putative mechanism of working memory-and motor learning in the cerebellum.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAnimalsCerebellumConditioning, EyelidData Interpretation, StatisticalElectric StimulationElectrodes, ImplantedGABA AgonistsMaleMuscimolNerve FibersNeural PathwaysPrefrontal CortexRabbitsGABA AgonistsMuscimol

Identifiers

PMID19144967
PMCPMC2632850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.