2020
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01602
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Revised Computational Neuroanatomy for Motor Control

Abstract: We discuss a new framework for understanding the structure of motor control. Our approach integrates existing models of motor control with the reality of hierarchical cortical processing and the parallel segregated loops that characterize cortical–subcortical connections. We also incorporate the recent claim that cortex functions via predictive representation and optimal information utilization. Our framework assumes each cortical area engaged in motor control generates a predictive model of a differe… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
30
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 133 publications
3
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These replications also helped to localize the areas related with different forms of adaptation more precisely: anterior cerebellar lobules IV and V were important for force field adaptation whereas lobule VI was more important for visuomotor rotation. This differentiation could be related to distinct connectivity patterns of anterior cerebellum with the primary motor cortex and posterior cerebellum with premotor areas and posterior parietal cortex [31,32]. Thus, the anterior cerebellum receives somatosensory information that could be more critical for processes underlying force-field adaptation, whereas information transfer with the parietal cortex, which lies on the dorsal visual stream [33], could play an important role in visuomotor adaptation.…”
Section: Contribution Of Cerebellar Sub-structures To Visuomotor Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These replications also helped to localize the areas related with different forms of adaptation more precisely: anterior cerebellar lobules IV and V were important for force field adaptation whereas lobule VI was more important for visuomotor rotation. This differentiation could be related to distinct connectivity patterns of anterior cerebellum with the primary motor cortex and posterior cerebellum with premotor areas and posterior parietal cortex [31,32]. Thus, the anterior cerebellum receives somatosensory information that could be more critical for processes underlying force-field adaptation, whereas information transfer with the parietal cortex, which lies on the dorsal visual stream [33], could play an important role in visuomotor adaptation.…”
Section: Contribution Of Cerebellar Sub-structures To Visuomotor Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This has motivated theoretical models of network interactions underlying visuomotor adaptation [43,44]. Most recently, Haar and Donchin [32] suggested a multilayer model for motor control in which parallel interactions between specific cortical areas and respective regions in basal-ganglia and cerebellum govern different aspects of proprioception and movement. The authors propose based on their recent findings [21,45], that in the context of a visuomotor adaptation task, the premotor cortex encodes the intended cursor movement (where do we want the cursor to go) and posterior parietal cortex represents the target and cursor position on the screen (where did the cursor actually go).…”
Section: Contribution Of Cortico-striato-cerebellar Network To Visuomotor Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[72][73][74] but is rarely studied in motor neuroscience and motor rehabilitation, which are usually using simplistic artificial tasks and measure movement over only one or two arm joints. This congruence between physical and EVR setting suggests that while there are clear differences between the environments in the learning and performance in the task level (as discussed above), there are strong similarities in the body level [75] which can potentially enhance transfer.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…[71][72][73] but is rarely studied in motor neuroscience and motor rehabilitation, which are usually using simplistic artificial tasks and measure movement over only one or two arm joints. This congruence between physical and EVR setting suggests that while there are clear differences between the environments in the learning and performance in the task level (as discussed above), there are strong similarities in the body level [74] which can potentially enhance transfer.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 94%