, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 414–432 | Cite as

Solution of the Problem of Central Pattern Generators and a New Concept of Brain Functions

  • K. V. Baev

A new concept of brain functions is proposed. According to it, the brain is a hierarchy of neural optimal control systems where each level possesses a dynamic model of its controlled object; this can be a lower control level in the CNS or an executive organ. The new concept of brain functions is based on the solution of the problem of central pattern generators and on the neural network computational principle. Contemporary data on the cerebellum, cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loops (the structural/functional basis of the highest brain levels), Parkinson’s disease, and methods of its treatment (including deep brain stimulation) are analyzed from the point of view of the new concept of brain functions. These examples demonstrate the universal applicability of the new concept in the investigation of the physiology and pathophysiology of neural networks and the respective clinical effects.


new concept of brain functions optimal control central pattern generator neural network computational principle cerebellum basal ganglia parkinsonism deep brain stimulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven (1947).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. A. Getting, “Understanding central pattern generators: insights gained from the study of invertebrate systems,” In: Neurobiology of Vertebrate Locomotion, S. Grillner, P. S. G. Stein, et al. (eds.), Macmillan Press, London (1986), pp. 231–244.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. V. Baev, V. B. Esipenko, and Y. P. Shimansky, “Afferent control of central pattern generators: experimental analysis of scratching in the decerebrate cat,” Neuroscience, 40, No. 1, 239–256 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. V. Baev, V. B. Esipenko, and Y. P. Shimansky, “Afferent control of central pattern generators: experimental analysis of locomotion in the decerebrate cat,” Neuroscience, 43, No. 1, 237–247 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. V. Baev, “Depolarization of different lumbar afferent terminals during fictitious scratching,” Neurophysiology (in Russian), 11, No. 6, 569–577 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. V. Baev, “Polarization of lumbar primary afferent terminals during fictitious locomotion,” Neurophysiology (in Russian), 12, No. 5, 481–489 (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. V. Baev and P. G. Kostyuk, “Primary afferent depolarization evoked by activity of spinal scratching generator,” Neuroscience, 6, 205–215 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. V. Baev and P. G. Kostyuk, “Polarization of primary afferent terminals of lumbosacral cord elicited by activity of spinal locomotor generator,” Neuroscience, 7, 1401–1409 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. G. Brown, “On the nature of the fundamental activity of the nervous centres, together with an analysis of the conditioning of rhythmic activity in progression, and a theory of the evolution of function in the nervous system,” J. Physiol., 48, No. 1, 18–46 (1914).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Brocard, S. Tazerart, and L. Vinay, “Do pacemakers drive the central pattern generator for locomotion in mammals?” Neuroscientist, 16, No. 2, 139–155 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. T. Buchanan, “Flexibility in the patterning and control of axial locomotor networks in lamprey,” Integr. Comp. Biol., 51, No. 6, 869–878 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. M. Jordan and U. Slawinska, “Chapter 12-modulation of rhythmic movement: control of coordination,” Prog. Brain Res., 188, 181–195 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Kiehn and K. Kullander, “Central pattern generators deciphered by molecular genetics,” Neuron, 42, No. 3, 317–321 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. N. Bronshtein and K. A. Semendyayev, Handbook of Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (1998).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. Hamburger, “Some aspects of the embryology of behavior,” Quart. Rev. Biol., 38, 342–365 (1963).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Hamburger and M. Balaban, “Observations and experiments on spontaneous rhythmical behavior in the chick embryo,” Dev. Biol., 7, 533–545 (1963).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. Hamburger and R. Oppenheim, “Prehatching motility and hatching behavior in the chick,” J. Exp. Zool., 166, No. 2, 171–203 (1967).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. N. Kolmogorov, “On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR [in Russian], 114, 953–956 (1957).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. M. Mendell and E. Henneman, “Terminals of single 1a fibers: Distribution within a pool of 300 homonymous motor neurons,” Science, 160, No. 3823, 96–98 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. M. Mendell and E. Henneman, “Terminals of single 1a fibers: Location, density, and distribution within a pool of 300 homonymous motoneurons,” J. Neurophysiol., 34, No. 1, 171–187 (1971).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K. V. Baev, “Learning in systems controlling motor automatisms,” Rev. Neurosci., 5, 55–87 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. D. Crutcher and M. R. Delong, “Single cell studies of the primate putamen. II. Relations to direction of movement and pattern of muscular activity,” Exp. Brain Res. Exp. Hirnforsch. Exp. Cerebr., 53, No. 2, 244–258 (1984).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. D. Crutcher and M. R. Delong, “Single cell studies of the primate putamen. I. Functional organization,” Exp. Brain Res. Exp. Hirnforsch. Exp. Cerebr., 53, No. 2, 233–243 (1984).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Kobayashi, H. Nishijo, M. Fukuda, et al., “Taskdependent representations in rat hippocampal place neurons,” J. Neurophysiol., 78, No. 2, 597–613 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. E. Sergio and J. F. Kalaska, “Systematic changes in directional tuning of motor cortex cell activity with hand location in the workspace during generation of static isometric forces in constant spatial directions,” J. Neurophysiol., 78, No. 2, 1170–1174 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. E. Sergio and J. F. Kalaska, “Systematic changes in motor cortex cell activity with arm posture during directional isometric force generation,” J. Neurophysiol., 89, No. 1, 212–228 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. V. Baev, “A new conceptual understanding of brain function: basic mechanisms of brain-initiated normal and pathological behaviors,” Crit. Rev. Neurobiol., 19, Nos. 2/3, 119–202 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. V. Baev and Y. P. Shimansky, “Principles of organization of neural systems controlling automatic movements in animals,” Prog. Neurobiol., 39, No. 1, 45–112 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. I. Arshavsky, I. M. Gelfand, and G. N. Orlovsky, Cerebellum and Rhythmic Movements, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    J. Eccles, M. Ito, and J. Szentagothai, The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1967).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. E. Alexander, M. D. Crutcher, and M. R. Delong, “Basal ganglia-thalamocortical circuits: Parallel substrates for motor, oculomotor, “prefrontal” and “limbic” functions,” Prog. Brain Res., 85, 119–146 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    G. E. Alexander, M. R. Delong, and P. L. Strick, “Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex,” Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 9, 357–381 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    P. Apicella, E. Scarnati, T. Ljungberg, and W. Schultz, “Neuronal activity in monkey striatum related to the expectation of predictable environmental events,” J. Neurophysiol., 68, No. 3, 945–960 (1992).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    T. Ljungberg, P. Apicella, and W. Schultz, “Responses of monkey dopamine neurons during learning of behavioral reactions,” J. Neurophysiol., 67, No. 1, 145–163 (1992).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    W. Schultz, “Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons,” J. Neurophysiol., 80, No. 1, 1–27 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    K. V. Baev, “Disturbances of learning processes in the basal ganglia in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease: a novel theory,” Neurol. Res., 17, No. 1, 38–48 (1995).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    K. V. Baev, “Highest level automatisms in the nervous system: a theory of functional principles underlying the highest forms of brain function,” Progr. Neurobiol., 51, 129–166 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    K. V. Baev, Biological Neural Networks: Hierarchical Concept of Brain Function, Birkhauser, Boston (1998).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    K. V. Baev, K. A. Greene, F. F. Marciano, et al., “Physiology and pathophysiology of cortico-basal ganglia-thalamocortical loops: theoretical and practical aspects,” Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiat., 26, No. 4, 771–804 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    C. R. Butson and C. C. Mcintyre, “Role of electrode design on the volume of tissue activated during deep brain stimulation,” J. Neural. Eng., 3, No. 1, 1–8 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    C. Hamani, J. A. Saint-Cyr, J. Fraser, et al., “The subthalamic nucleus in the context of movement disorders,” Brain, 127, Part 1, 4–20 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. Goard and Y. Dan, “Basal forebrain activation enhances cortical coding of natural scenes,” Nat. Neurosci., 12, No. 11, 1444–1449 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    P. K. Anokhin, Biology and Neurophysiology of Conditioned Reflex and Its Role in Adaptive Behavior, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1974).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    N. A. Bernstein, Sketches on Physiology of Movements and Physiology of Activity (in Russian), Meditzina, Moskow (1966).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. von Holst, “Relations between the central nervous system and the peripheral organ,” Br. J. Anim. Behav., 2, 89–94 (1954).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    N. Chub and M. J. O’donovan, “Blockade and recovery of spontaneous rhythmic activity after application of neurotransmitter antagonists to spinal networks of the chick embryo,” J. Neurosci., 18, No. 1, 294–306 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. Bickle, Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave, Mit Press, Cambridge, Ma (1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical CenterPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations