↓ Skip to main content

Motor learning in the VOR: the cerebellar component

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, February 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Motor learning in the VOR: the cerebellar component
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, February 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00221-011-2589-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dianne M. Broussard, Heather K. Titley, Jordan Antflick, David R. Hampson

Abstract

This paper reviews results that support a model in which memory for VOR gain is initially encoded in the flocculus, and in which cerebellar LTD and LTP are responsible for gain increases and gain decreases, respectively. We also review data suggesting that after it is encoded, motor memory can either be disrupted, possibly by a local mechanism, or else consolidated. We show that consolidation can be rapid, in which case the frequency dependence of learning is unchanged and we will argue that this is consistent with a local mechanism of consolidation. In the longer term, however, the available evidence supports the transfer of memory out of the flocculus. In new experiments reported here, we address the mechanism of memory encoding. Pharmacological evidence shows that both mGluR1 and GABA(B) receptors in the flocculus are necessary for gain-up, but not for gain-down learning. Immunohistochemical experiments show that the two receptors are largely segregated on different dendritic spines on Purkinje cells. Together with what is already known of the mechanisms of cerebellar LTD and LTP, our data suggest that the direction of learning may be determined by interactions among groups of spines. Our results also provide new evidence for the existence of frequency channels for vestibular signals within the cerebellar cortex.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 66 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 20 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 9 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#7,453,350
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#900
of 3,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,677
of 106,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 106,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.