Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25855165›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2015

The role of the posterior cerebellum in saccadic adaptation: a transcranial direct current stimulation study.

Muriel T N Panouillères, R Chris Miall, Ned Jenkinson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Little Brain, Big Expectations.Brain sciences · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Muriel T N PanouillèresNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom, muriel.panouilleres@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0264-2093
R Chris MiallBehavioural Brain Sciences Centre, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom, and.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-1251
Ned JenkinsonNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6803-486X
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J004588/1Medical Research Council MR/K00414X/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT087554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The posterior vermis of the cerebellum is considered to be critically involved in saccadic adaptation. However, recent evidence suggests that the adaptive decrease (backward adaptation) and the adaptive increase (forward adaptation) of saccade amplitude rely on partially separate neural substrates. We investigated whether the posterior cerebellum could be differentially involved in backward and forward adaptation by using transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS). To do so, participants' saccades were adapted backward or forward while they received anodal, cathodal, or sham TDCS. In two extra groups, subjects underwent a nonadaptation session while receiving anodal or cathodal TDCS to control for the direct effects of TDCS on saccadic execution. Surprisingly, cathodal stimulation tended to increase the extent of both forward and backward adaptations, while anodal TDCS strongly impaired forward adaptation and, to a smaller extent, backward adaptation. Forward adaptation was accompanied by a greater increase in velocity with cathodal stimulation, and reduced duration of change for anodal stimulation. In contrast, the expected velocity decrease in backward adaptation was noticeably weaker with anodal stimulation. Stimulation applied during nonadaptation sessions did not affect saccadic gain, velocity, or duration, demonstrating that the reported effects are not due to direct effects of the stimulation on the generation of eye movements. Our results demonstrate that cerebellar excitability is critical for saccadic adaptation. Based on our results and the growing evidence from studies of vestibulo-ocular reflex and saccadic adaptation, we conclude that the plasticity at the level of the oculomotor vermis is more fundamentally important for forward adaptation than for backward adaptation.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAdaptation, PhysiologicalAdultAnalysis of VarianceBiophysicsCerebellumFemaleHumansInfrared RaysMaleReaction TimeSaccadesTime FactorsYoung AdultadaptationcerebellumsaccadesTDCS

Identifiers

PMID25855165
PMCPMC4388915
OpenAlexW2044802787

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.