Cerebellar cortex involvement in classical eyelid conditioning

A model for cerebellar involvement in motor learning was tested using classical eyelid conditioning in the rabbit. Briefly, we assume that modifications of the strength of granule cell synapses at Purkinje cells in the cerebellar cortex and mossy fiber (MF) synapses at cerebellar interpositus nuclei are responsible for the acquisition, adaptively-timed expression, and extinction of conditioned eyelid responses (CRs). A corollary of these assumptions is that the cerebellar cortex is necessary for acquisition and extinction. This model also suggests a mechanism whereby the cerebellar cortex can discriminate different times during a conditioned stimulus (CS) and thus mediate the learned timing of CRs. Therefore, experiments were done to determine the role of the cerebellar cortex in the timing, extinction, and acquisition of CRs. Lesions of the cerebellar cortex that included the anterior lobe disrupted the learned timing of CRs such that they occurred at extremely short latencies. Stimulation of MFs in the middle cerebellar peduncle as the CS could support differently timed CRs in the same animal. These data indicate that synaptic plasticity in the cerebellar cortex mediates the learned timing of CRs. These short-latency CRs which resulted from anterior lobe damage did not extinguish, while CRs in animals receiving lesions which did not include the anterior lobe extinguished normally. Preliminary data suggests that lesions of the anterior lobe which produce short-latency responses prevent the acquisition of CRs to a novel CS. These findings indicate that the anterior lobe of cerebellar cortex is necessary for eyelid conditioning. The involvement of the anterior lobe in eyelid conditioning has not been previously reported, however, the anterior lobe has generally been spared in lesion studies examining cerebellar cortex involvement in eyelid conditioning due to its relatively inaccessible location. The observation that the anterior lobe of the cerebellar cortex is not always required for the basic expression of CRs, but is necessary for response timing, extinction, and acquisition, is consistent with the hypothesis that eyelid conditioning can involve plasticity in both the cerebellar cortex and interpositus nucleus and that plasticity in the nucleus is controlled by Purkinje cell activity. ^

Characterization of the interactions between two sites of plasticity engaged during eyelid conditioning

Here, we investigate the involvement of two sites of plasticity in the learning and expression of a simple associative motor behavior—the classically conditioned eyelid response. While previous studies clearly demonstrate that lesions of the anterior interpositus nucleus of the cerebellum abolish learned responses and prevent subsequent learning, studies investigating the effects of lesions of the cerebellar cortex on learning and retention have produced discrepant results. We complement ablative lesion studies of the cortex with the use of reversible, pharmacological blockade of cerebellar cortical transmission to investigate the role of the cerebellar cortex in eyelid conditioning. We demonstrate that both pharmacological blockade as well as focused ablative lesions of the cortex abolish timed responses and unmask responses with a fixed, short latency that are not displayed by the intact animal. Pharmacological blockade of cerebellar cortex output at various stages of acquisition and extinction reveals appropriate, learning dependent changes in the amplitude and probability of short latency responses during training. Acquisition of both short latency as well as timed responses is prevented by ablative lesions of the anterior lobe of the cerebellar cortex. These convergent results from technically distinct methods of removing the influence of the cerebellar cortex from conditioned behavior are consistent with the proposal that (1) eyelid conditioning engages two cerebellar sites of plasticity-one in the cortex and one in the anterior interpositus nucleus, (2) plasticity in the cerebellar cortex is necessary for proper response timing, (3) plasticity in the nucleus mediates the short latency responses unmasked by lesions of the cerebellar cortex, and (4) cerebellar cortical output is necessary for the induction of plasticity in the nucleus. ^