Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 100, Issue 1, pp 81–95 | Cite as

Implications of different classes of sensorimotor disturbance for cerebellar-based motor learning models

Original Paper

Abstract

The exact role of the cerebellum in motor control and learning is not yet fully understood. The structure, connectivity and plasticity within cerebellar cortex has been extensively studied, but the patterns of connectivity and interaction with other brain structures, and the computational significance of these patterns, is less well known and a matter of debate. Two contrasting models of the role of the cerebellum in motor adaptation have previously been proposed. Most commonly, the cerebellum is employed in a purely feedforward pathway, with its output contributing directly to the outgoing motor command. The cerebellum must then learn an inverse model of the motor apparatus in order to achieve accurate control. More recently, Porrill et al. (Proc Biol Sci 271(1541):789–796, 2004) and Porrill et al. (PLoS Comput Biol 3:1935–1950, 2007a) and Porrill et al. (Neural Comput 19(1), 170–193, 2007b) have highlighted the potential importance of these recurrent connections by proposing an alternative architecture in which the cerebellum is embedded in a recurrent loop with brainstem control circuitry. In this framework, the feedforward connections are not necessary at all. The cerebellum must learn a forward model of the motor apparatus for accurate motor commands to be generated. We show here how these two models exhibit contrasting yet complimentary learning capabilities. Central to the differences in performance between architectures is that there are two distinct kinds of disturbance to which a motor system may need to adapt (1) changes in the relationship between the motor command and the observed outcome and (2) changes in the relationship between the stimulus and the desired outcome. The computational distinction between these two kinds of transformation is subtle and has therefore often been overlooked. However, the implications for learning turn out to be significant: learning with a feedforward architecture is robust following changes in the stimulus-desired outcome mapping but not necessarily the motor command-outcome mapping, while learning with a recurrent architecture is robust under changes in the motor command-outcome mapping but not necessarily the stimulus-desired outcome mapping. We first analyse these differences theoretically and through simulations in the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR), then illustrate how these same concepts apply more generally with a model of reaching movements.

Keywords

Cerebellum Motor adaptation VOR Kinematics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baizer J, Kralj-Hans I, Glickstein M (1999) Cerebellar lesions and prism adaptation in macaque monkeys. J Neurophysiol 81(4): 1960–1965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastian A, Martin T, Keating J, Thach WT (1996) Cerebellar ataxia: abnormal control of interaction torques across multiple joints. J Neurophysiol 76: 492–509PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyden ES, Katoh A, Raymond JL (2004) Cerebellum-dependent learning: the role of multiple plasticity mechanisms. Annu Rev Neurosci 27: 581–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coenen OJ, Sejnowski TJ (1996) A dynamical model of context dependencies for the vestibulo-ocular reflex. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 8. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Diedrichsen J, Hashambhoy Y, Rane T, Shadmehr R (2005) Neural correlates of reach errors. J Neurosci 25: 9919–9931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gomi H, Kawato M (1990) Learning control for a closed loop system using feedback-error-learning. In: Proceedings of the 29th conference on decision and control, pp 3289–3294Google Scholar
  7. Haith A, Vijayakumar S (2007) Robustness of VOR and OKR adaptation under kinematics and dynamics transformations. In: Proceedings of 6th IEEE international conference on development and learning (ICDL ’07), London (2007)Google Scholar
  8. Hirata Y, Highstein SM (2001) Acute adaptation of the vestibuloocular reflex: signal processing by floccular and ventral parafloccular Purkinje cells. J Neurophysiol 85(5): 2267–2288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Imamizu H, Miyauchi S, Tamada T, Sasaki Y, Takino R, Putz B, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2000) Human cerebellar activity reflecting an acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature 403(6766): 192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ito M (2000) Mechanisms of motor learning in the cerebellum. Brain Res 886(1–2): 237–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordan MI, Rumelhart DE (1992) Forward models: supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognit Sci 16: 307–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawato M, Gomi H (1992) The cerebellum and VOR/OKR learning models. Trends Neurosci 15(11): 445–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krakauer JW, Pine ZM, Ghilardi MF, Ghez C (2000) Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. J Neurosci 20(23): 8916–8924 (clinical trial)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lurito JT, Georgakopoulos T, Georgopoulos AP (1991) Cognitive spatial-motor processes. 7. The making of movements at an angle from a stimulus direction: studies of motor cortical activity at the single cell and population levels. Exp Brain Res 87(3): 562–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Magescas F, Prablanc C (2006) Automatic drive of limb motor plasticity. J Cogn Neurosci 18: 75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLaughlin S (1967) Parametric adjustment in saccadic eye movement. Percept Psychophys 2: 359–362Google Scholar
  17. Optican LM, Robinson DA (1980) Cerebellar-dependent adaptive control of primate saccadic system. J Neurophysiol 44(6): 1058–1076PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Porrill J, Dean P (2007a) Cerebellar motor learning: when is cortical plasticity not enough?. PLoS Comput Biol 3: 1935–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Porrill J, Dean P (2007b) Recurrent cerebellar loops simplify adaptive control of redundant and nonlinear motor systems. Neural Comput 19(1): 170–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porrill J, Dean P, Stone JV (2004) Recurrent cerebellar architecture solves the motor-error problem. Proc Biol Sci 271(1541): 789–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Robinson D (1964) The mechanics of human saccadic eye movement. J Physiol 174: 245–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schweighofer N, Arbib MA, Kawato M (1998) Role of the cerebellum in reaching movements in humans. I. Distributed inverse dynamics control. Eur J Neurosci 10(1): 86–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scudder CA, Batourina EY, Tunder GS (1998) Comparison of two methods of producing adaptation of saccade size and implications for the site of plasticity. J Neurophysiol 79(2): 704–715 (comparative study)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Shadmehr R, Mussa-Ivaldi FA (1994) Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. J Neurosci 14(5 Pt 2): 3208–3224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shadmehr R, Wise SP (2005) The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Shibata T, Schaal S (2001) Biomimetic gaze stabilization based on feedback-error-learning with nonparametric regression networks. Neural Netw 14(2): 201–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson J, Wylie D, De Zeeuw C (1996) On climbing fiber signals and their consequence(s). Behav Brain Sci 19(3): 339–527Google Scholar
  28. Smith M, Shadmehr R (2005) Intact ability to learn internal models of arm dynamics in huntington’s but not cerebellar degeneration. J Neurophysiol 93: 2809–2821PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Todorov E (2000) Direct cortical control of muscle activation in voluntary arm movements: a model. Nat Neurosci 3(4): 391–398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M (1998) Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends Cognit Sci 2: 338–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yutaka H, Akimasa Y, Blazquez PM, Highstein SM (2005) Evaluation of the inverse dynamic model in cerebellum during visual-vestibular interactions at different VOR gains in squirrel monkeys. Neurocomputing 65–66: 709–717Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations