ArticlePLoS biology2025
Purkinje cells of the cerebellum control deceleration of tongue movements.
Article in PLoS biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A neural language for the cerebellum: control of behavior via competing populations of Purkinje cells.Journal of neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Cerebellar circuit computations for predictive motor control.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
- Disentangling acute motor deficits and adaptive responses evoked by the loss of cerebellar output.eLife · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We use our tongue much like our hands: to interact with objects and transport them. For example, we use our hands to sense properties of objects and transport them in the nearby space, and we use our tongue to sense properties of food morsels and transport them through the oral cavity. But what does the cerebellum contribute to control of tongue movements? Here, we trained head-fixed marmosets to make skillful tongue movements to harvest food from small tubes that were placed at sharp angles to their mouth. We identified the lingual regions of the cerebellar vermis and then measured the contribution of each Purkinje cell (P-cell) to control of the tongue by relying on the brief but complete suppression that they experienced following an input from the inferior olive. When a P-cell was suppressed during protraction, the tongue's trajectory became hypermetric, and when the suppression took place during retraction, the tongue's return to the mouth was slowed. Both effects were amplified when two P-cells were simultaneously suppressed. Moreover, these effects were present even when the pauses were not due to the climbing fiber input. Therefore, suppression of P-cells in the lingual vermis disrupted the forces that would normally decelerate the tongue as it approached the target. Notably, the population simple spike activity peaked near deceleration onset when the movement required precision (aiming for a tube), but not when the movement was for the purpose of grooming. Thus, the P-cells appeared to signal when to stop protrusion as the tongue approached its target.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.