1997
DOI: 10.1101/lm.4.1.105
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of varying the intensity and train frequency of forelimb and cerebellar mossy fiber conditioned stimuli on the latency of conditioned eye-blink responses in decerebrate ferrets.

Abstract: To study the role of the mossy fiber afferents to the cerebellum in classical eye-blink conditioning, in particular the timing of the conditioned responses, we compared the effects of varying a peripheral conditioned stimulus with the effects of corresponding variations of direct stimulation of the mossy fibers. In one set of experiments, decerebrate ferrets were trained in a Pavlovian eye-blink conditioning paradigm with electrical forelimb train stimulation as conditioned stimulus and electrical periorbital … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
23
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
4
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The animals were curarized, so behavioral (i.e., sensory) feedback from the periorbital area could not have caused the Purkinje cell response. Second, the suppression of simple spike firing starts earlier than the overt behavior observed in similarly trained but noncurarized animals in previous investigations (Svensson et al, 1997;Hesslow et al, 1999), in some cases after just a couple of milliseconds, which is so short that it could not even reflect feedback from premotor signals. Third, the response was elicited by direct mossy fiber stimulation, which excludes all extracerebellar sources of input, including premotor structures.…”
Section: The Purkinje Cell Cr Can Explain the Behaviormentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The animals were curarized, so behavioral (i.e., sensory) feedback from the periorbital area could not have caused the Purkinje cell response. Second, the suppression of simple spike firing starts earlier than the overt behavior observed in similarly trained but noncurarized animals in previous investigations (Svensson et al, 1997;Hesslow et al, 1999), in some cases after just a couple of milliseconds, which is so short that it could not even reflect feedback from premotor signals. Third, the response was elicited by direct mossy fiber stimulation, which excludes all extracerebellar sources of input, including premotor structures.…”
Section: The Purkinje Cell Cr Can Explain the Behaviormentioning
confidence: 82%
“…The presence of the early component was not related to the amount of training or the duration of the CS, but rather the position of the electrode tip. The short‐latency EMG activity in the orbicular oculi muscle was probably caused by an activation of the trigeminal nerve as lowering the electrode too deep into the trigeminal nerve evoked the short‐latency component (see , Svensson et al . 1997b).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies indicate that this is unlikely. Direct stimulation of the trigeminal nerve, situated just ventro‐lateral to the stimulation site in the middle cerebellar peduncle, always elicited short‐latency EMG responses in the orbicularis oculi muscle and never any responses that resembled CRs (Svensson et al . 1997b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…responses (% CRs) was determined from the number of CS presentations that elicited a conditioned response reaching the indicated criteria. In accordance with previous descriptions (Boele et al 2010;Domínguez-del-Toro et al 2004;Koekkoek et al 2002;Porras-García et al 2005;Svensson et al 1997), the selected criteria included the analysis of the amplitude and area of evoked eyelid responses as determined by quantitative analysis of the EMG activity of the OO muscle (see Fig. 3 for details).…”
Section: Recording and Stimulating Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%