Basal Ganglia Perform Differencing Between ‘Desired’ and ‘Experienced’ Parameters

  • András Lőrincz


The recently introduced first order SDS feedback control scheme1 has been suggested as a suitable model of the basal ganglia — thalamocortical (BTC) loops2. The first order SDS model of the BTC loops can be extended to plants of any order3 by slight modification of the original scheme. This SDS model identifies the direct and the indirect pathways of basal ganglia (BG) that respectively tend to enhance and suppress the reentrant thalamocortical excitation4 with the desired (planned) and experienced channels of the SDS scheme. The model predicts that a relatively high contribution from the desired channel results in Huntington’s disease whereas a relatively high contribution from the experienced channel results in Parkinson’s disease. The model can be considered as a mathematical framework of the phenomenological thalamic disinhibition (TDI) model of DeLong4. The TDI model suggests that if the BG output is increased (decreased) it shifts the motion towards hypokinetic (hyperkinetic) states. Despite explaining several features of the BTC loops, the TDI model also predicts that lesion to the BG output recipient zones of the thalamus results in akinesia, which is not the case. This pitfall is avoided in the SDS model. The features of the general new scheme utilized to model the BTC loops are described in this paper.


Basal Ganglion Control Vector Model Neuron Supplementary Motor Area Inverse Dynamic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cs. Szepesvári, Sz. Cimmer, and A. Lőrincz, Neurocontroller using dynamic state feedback for compensatory control, Neural Networks 10: 1691 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Lőrincz, Static and dynamic state feedback control model of basal ganglia — t h alamo cortical loops, J. Int. Neural Systems (In press).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cs. Szepesvári and A. Lőrincz, Approximate inverse-dynamics based robust control using static and dynamic state feedback, in: “Applications of Neural Adaptive Control Thechnology” J. Kalkkuhl, K. J. Hunt, R. Zbikowski, and A. Dzielinski, eds. World Scientific, Singapore (1997).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M.R. DeLong, Primate models of movement disorders of basal ganglia origin, TINS 13: 281 (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.M. Graybiel and C.W. Ragsdale, Jr., Histochemically distinct compartments in the striatum of human, monkeys, and cat demonstrated by acetylthiocholinesterase staining, PNAS 75: 5723(1978).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Malach and A.M. Graybiel, Mosaic architecture of the somatic sensory-recipient sector of the cat’s striatum, J. Neurosci. 12: 3436 (1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.E. Hoover and P.L. Strick, Multiple output channels in the basal ganglia, Science 259: 819 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.T. Weber and T.C.T. Yin, Subcortical projections of the inferior parietal cortex (area 7) in the stump-tailed monkey, J. Comp. Neurol. 224: 206 (1984).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.D. Selemon and P.S. Goldman-Rakic, Longitudinal topography and interdigitation of corticostriatal projections in the rhesus monkey, J. Neurosci. 5: 776 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cs. Szepesvári and A. Lőrincz, An integrated architecture for motion-control and planning, J. Robotic Systems (In press).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Fomin, T. Rozgonyi, Cs. Szepesvári, and A. Lőrincz, Self-organizing multi-resolution grid for motion planning and control, J. Int. Neural Systems 7: 757 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.E. Alexander G. E. and M. D. Crutcher, Control of goal-directed limb movements in primates: Neurobiological evidence for parallel, distributed motor processing, in: “Neurobiology of Motor Programme Selection,” J. Kien, C. R. McCrohan, W. Winlow, eds., Pergamon, Oxford (1992).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. W. Anderson and W. T. Miller III, Challenging control problems, in: “Neural Networks for Control,” W.T. Miller III, R.S. Sutton, P.J. Werbos, eds. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cs. Szepesvári and A. Lőrincz, (Unpublished observations).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Schultz, P. Apicella, R. Romo, and E. Scarnati, Context-dependent activity in primate striatum reflecting past and future behavioral events, in: “Models of Information Processing in the Basal Ganglia”, J. C. Houk, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge (1995).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. C. Houk, J. L. Adams, and A. G. Barto, A model how the basal ganglia generate and use neural signals that predict reinforcement, in: “Models of Information Processing in the Basal Ganglia”, J. C. Houk, ed., MIT Press, Cambridge (1995).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. S. Berns and T. J. Sejnowski, How the basal ganglia makes decisions, in: “Neurobiology of Decision Making”, A. Damasio, ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • András Lőrincz
    • 1
  1. 1.Associative Computing Inc.BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations