The basal ganglia communicate with the cerebellum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basal ganglia and cerebellum are major subcortical structures that influence not only movement, but putatively also cognition and affect. Both structures receive input from and send output to the cerebral cortex. Thus, the basal ganglia and cerebellum form multisynaptic loops with the cerebral cortex. Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops have been assumed to be anatomically separate and to perform distinct functional operations. We investigated whether there is any direct route for basal ganglia output to influence cerebellar function that is independent of the cerebral cortex. We injected rabies virus (RV) into selected regions of the cerebellar cortex in cebus monkeys and used retrograde transneuronal transport of the virus to determine the origin of multisynaptic inputs to the injection sites. We found that the subthalamic nucleus of the basal ganglia has a substantial disynaptic projection to the cerebellar cortex. This pathway provides a means for both normal and abnormal signals from the basal ganglia to influence cerebellar function. We previously showed that the dentate nucleus of the cerebellum has a disynaptic projection to an input stage of basal ganglia processing, the striatum. Taken together these results provide the anatomical substrate for substantial two-way communication between the basal ganglia and cerebellum. Thus, the two subcortical structures may be linked together to form an integrated functional network.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".