“…A recent Cochrane review of three trials of cerebellar stimulation ( Van Buren et al, 1978 ; Wright et al, 1984 ; Velasco et al, 2005 ) found that there was simply insufficient evidence to make conclusive statements on the efficacy of cerebellar stimulation ( Sprengers et al, 2014 ). The mixed results in human studies has also contributed to the weakened enthusiasm for the potential of cerebellar-directed intervention, and despite the continued listing of the cerebellum as a potential target in reviews of electrical stimulation for epilepsy ( Theodore and Fisher, 2004 ; Morrell, 2006 ; Boon et al, 2007 ; Karceski, 2007 ; Krauss and Koubeissi, 2007 ; Ellis and Stevens, 2008 ; Hamani et al, 2009 ; Lockman and Fisher, 2009 ; Saillet et al, 2009 ; Wyckhuys et al, 2009 ; Kahane and Depaulis, 2010 ; Lega et al, 2010 ; Rahman et al, 2010 ; Zhong et al, 2011 ; Tykocki et al, 2012 ; Fisher, 2013 ; Ge et al, 2013 ; Fisher and Velasco, 2014 ; Laxpati et al, 2014 ), relatively little recent experimental work has actually examined this topic. While our results clearly support renewed interest in the cerebellum as a potential intervention target, future translational success will require identifying the appropriate population for this intervention (e.g., perhaps patients with temporal lobe epilepsy), the appropriate location for intervention (e.g., the midline), the appropriate stimulation parameters (e.g., to activate, rather than inhibit, the midline), an appropriate sample same size, improvements in surgical procedures including device implantation (to avoid electrode migration), and possibly the implementation of an on-demand, responsive system to control the timing of intervention ( Fountas et al, 2010 ; Rahman et al, 2010 ; Armstrong et al, 2013 ; Heck et al, 2014 ; Sprengers et al, 2014 ).…”