Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33464470›Full record

ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2021

Gating by Functionally Indivisible Cerebellar Circuits: a Hypothesis.

Mike Gilbert, Chris Miall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Mike GilbertSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. mhuwg@hotmail.com.
Chris MiallSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The attempt to understand the cerebellum has been dominated for years by supervised learning models. The central idea is that a learning algorithm modifies transmission strength at repeatedly co-active synapses, creating memories stored as finely calibrated synaptic weights. As a result, Purkinje cells, usually the de facto output cells of these models, acquire a modified response to input in a remembered pattern. This paper proposes an alternative model of pattern memory in which the function of a match is permissive, allowing but not driving output, and accordingly controlling the timing of output but not the rate of firing by Purkinje cells. Learning does not result in graded synaptic weights. There is no supervised learning algorithm or memory of individual patterns, which, like graded weights, are unnecessary to explain the evidence. Instead, patterns are classed as simply either known or not, at the level of input to a functional population of 100s of Purkinje cells (a microzone). The standard is strict. If only a handful of Purkinje cells receive a mismatch output of the whole circuit is blocked. Only if there is a full and accurate match are projection neurons in deep nuclei, which carry the output of most circuits, released from default inhibitory restraint. Purkinje cell firing at those times is a linear function of input rates. There is no effect of modification of synaptic transmission except to either allow or block output.

Indexed as

CerebellumPurkinje CellsSynapsesSynaptic TransmissionCerebellumLearningMemoryParallel fibresPurkinje cellsTheory

Identifiers

PMID33464470
PMCPMC8360902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.