Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1984 May;81(9):2917–2920. doi: 10.1073/pnas.81.9.2917

Cerebellum mediates modality-specific modulation of sensory responses of midbrain and forebrain in rat.

L Crispino, T H Bullock
PMCID: PMC345184  PMID: 6585836

Abstract

Evidence of a sensory role of the cerebellum, mediating a modulation of effectiveness of afferent input at other parts of the brain, has been reported previously for certain sense modalities but has not been evaluated across several in a mammal. After a conditioning train of stimuli applied to the cerebellar surface in unanesthetized rats, diffuse flashes, acoustic clicks, and shocks to the sciatic nerve evoked multiunit and field potential responses that were recorded at three levels: midbrain, thalamus, and cerebral cortex. At a best interval between end of conditioning train (cerebellar) and test (sensory) stimuli, all three levels show modulation of the evoked responses, each in a specific direction (enhancement or depression), with a characteristic time course. Visual responses in the tectum are enhanced; those in the cortex are depressed. Tectal responses that have been nearly abolished by increasing background illumination are partially restored by the conditioning cerebellar train. Auditory brainstem responses (short latency, less than 10 ms, far-field waves I to III, attributed to medullary levels) are depressed; wave IV from the inferior colliculus is relatively enhanced at short intervals and is depressed at longer intervals. Somatosensory responses in thalamus and cortex are depressed. Lobulae V, VI, and VII of the vermis are more effective sites of stimulation than other areas tested. Most of the modulations are ascribed to central sites; a few are ascribed to peripheral sites.

Full text

PDF
2917

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Buchwald J. S., Huang C. Far-field acoustic response: origins in the cat. Science. 1975 Aug 1;189(4200):382–384. doi: 10.1126/science.1145206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Crispino L. Modification of responses from specific sensory systems in midbrain by cerebellar stimulation: experiments on a teleost fish. J Neurophysiol. 1983 Jan;49(1):3–15. doi: 10.1152/jn.1983.49.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. HAGBARTH K. E., KERR D. I. Central influences on spinal afferent conduction. J Neurophysiol. 1954 May;17(3):295–307. doi: 10.1152/jn.1954.17.3.295. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jewett D. L., Romano M. N. Neonatal development of auditory system potentials averaged from the scalp of rat and cat. Brain Res. 1972 Jan 14;36(1):101–115. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(72)90769-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lorenzo D., Velluti J. C., Crispino L., Velluti R. Cerebellar sensory functions: rat auditory evoked potentials. Exp Neurol. 1977 Jun;55(3 Pt 1):629–636. doi: 10.1016/0014-4886(77)90289-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Plantz R. G., Williston J. S., Jewett D. L. Spatio-temporal distribution of auditory-evoked far field potentials in rat and cat. Brain Res. 1974 Mar 15;68(1):55–71. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(74)90533-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Roldán M., Reinoso-Suárez F. Cerebellar projections to the superior colliculus in the cat. J Neurosci. 1981 Aug;1(8):827–834. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.01-08-00827.1981. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Shambes G. M., Beermann D. H., Welker W. Multiple tactile areas in cerebellar cortex: another patchy cutaneous projection to granule cell columns in rats. Brain Res. 1978 Nov 17;157(1):123–128. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(78)91000-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Shambes G. M., Gibson J. M., Welker W. Fractured somatotopy in granule cell tactile areas of rat cerebellar hemispheres revealed by micromapping. Brain Behav Evol. 1978;15(2):94–140. doi: 10.1159/000123774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Shipley C., Buchwald J. S., Norman R., Guthrie D. Brain stem auditory evoked response development in the kitten. Brain Res. 1980 Jan 27;182(2):313–326. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(80)91191-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Velluti R., Crispino L. Cerebellar actions on cochlear microphonics and on auditory nerve action potential. Brain Res Bull. 1979 Sep-Oct;4(5):621–624. doi: 10.1016/0361-9230(79)90103-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wolfe J. W., Kos C. M. Cerebellar inhibition of auditory function. Trans Sect Otolaryngol Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1975 May-Jun;80(3 Pt 1):314–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES