ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2014
Golgi cell activity during eyeblink conditioning in decerebrate ferrets.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The cerebellum converts input data into a hyper low-resolution granule cell code with spatial dimensions: a hypothesis.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Appearance of fetal pain could be associated with maturation of the mesodiencephalic structures.Journal of pain research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Golgi cells have a central position in the cerebellar cortical network and are indirectly connected to Purkinje cells, which are important for the acquisition of learned responses in classical conditioning. In order to clarify the role of Golgi cells in classical conditioning, we made extracellular Golgi cell recordings during different stages of conditioning, using four different conditional stimuli. Our results show that forelimb and superior colliculus stimulation, but not mossy fiber stimulation, evokes a short latency increase in Golgi cell firing. These results suggest that Golgi cells are involved in modulating input to the cerebellar cortex. There were however no differences in Golgi cell activity between naïve and trained animals, which suggests that Golgi cells are not intimately involved in the plastic changes that occur during classical conditioning. The absence of long latency effects of the conditional stimulus also questions whether Golgi cells contribute to the generation of a temporal code in the granule cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23982588What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.