Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42205880›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neural circuits2026

Beyond synaptic plasticity: a summary of a linear model of the cerebellar locomotor computation.

Mike Gilbert, Anders Rasmussen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neural circuits, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Anders RasmussenDepartment of Experimental Medical Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a summary of ideas that attempt to explain how the locomotor cerebellum may represent and process information. It includes the proposals that (i) the main network computation is a passive and unlearned effect of cell type morphologies and neural architecture; (ii) information has topographically defined spatial dimensions; (iii) it is coded at collective level, at any instant, in any random sample of functionally grouped signals; (iv) topographical organization extends outside the cerebellum and maps to the peripheral nervous system; and (v) learning and memory are at microzone level and in a supplementary role. The aim is to provide competition for traditional learning models and to challenge some common assumptions. We have found that the main resistance to the proposals is in these areas: loyalty to the traditional model; mathematically, the computation is unexpectedly unsophisticated; on the face of it, the mechanism is resource-heavy; we propose that neuroanatomy automates motor coordination and converts feedback into motor output in real time. Some of the ideas are contentious. We argue, nonetheless, that the proposals can explain the evidence.

Indexed as

CerebellumLocomotionModels, NeurologicalNeuronal PlasticityAnimalsHumansLearningNerve NetNeuronscerebellar computationcerebellumhypothesislinear modelmotor controlneural networksneurosciencetheory

Identifiers

PMID42205880
PMCPMC13201492

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.