JN AJP: Advances in Physiology Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (August 1, 2007). doi:10.1152/jn.00344.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Videos
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/4/2328    most recent
00344.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wetmore, D. Z
Right arrow Articles by Schnitzer, M. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wetmore, D. Z
Right arrow Articles by Schnitzer, M. J
Submitted on March 27, 2007
Accepted on July 15, 2007

Lock-and-key mechanisms of cerebellar memory recall based on rebound currents

Daniel Z Wetmore1, Eran A Mukamel2, and Mark J Schnitzer3*

1 Neurosciences Program, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
2 Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
3 Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States; Department of Applied Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mschnitz{at}stanford.edu.

A basic question for theories of learning and memory is whether neuronal plasticity suffices to guide proper memory recall. Alternatively, information processing that is additional to readout of stored memories might occur during recall. We formulate a 'lock-and-key' hypothesis regarding cerebellum-dependent motor memory in which successful learning shapes neural activity to match a temporal filter that prevents expression of stored but inappropriate motor responses. Thus, neuronal plasticity by itself is necessary but not sufficient to modify motor behavior. We explored this idea through computational studies of two cerebellar behaviors and examined whether deep cerebellar and vestibular nuclei neurons can filter signals from Purkinje cells that would otherwise drive inappropriate motor responses. In eyeblink conditioning, reflex acquisition requires the conditioned stimulus (CS) to precede the unconditioned stimulus (US) by >100 ms. In our biophysical models of cerebellar nuclei neurons this requirement arises through the phenomenon of post-inhibitory rebound depolarization and matches longstanding behavioral data on conditioned reflex timing and reliability. Although CS-US intervals <100 ms may induce Purkinje cell plasticity, cerebellar nuclei neurons only drive conditioned responses if the CS-US training interval was >100 ms. This bound reflects the minimum time for deinactivation of rebound currents such as T-type Ca2+. In vestibulo-ocular reflex adaptation, hyperpolarization-activated currents in vestibular nuclei neurons may underlie analogous dependence of adaptation magnitude on the timing of visual and vestibular stimuli. Thus, the proposed lock-and-key mechanisms link channel kinetics to recall performance and yield specific predictions of how perturbations to rebound depolarization affect motor expression.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2007 by the The American Physiological Society.