Cited by 75Motor Control and AdaptationVestibular and auditory disordersMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Neural evidence of the cerebellum as a state predictor

Open access
Tanaka, Hirokazu, Ishikawa, Takahiro, Kakei, Shinji·2019·The Cerebellum

Abstract

We here provide neural evidence that the cerebellar circuit can predict future inputs from present outputs, a hallmark of an internal forward model. Recent computational studies hypothesize that the cerebellum performs state prediction known as a forward model. To test the forward-model hypothesis, we analyzed activities of 94 mossy fibers (inputs to the cerebellar cortex), 83 Purkinje cells (output from the cerebellar cortex to dentate nucleus), and 73 dentate nucleus cells (cerebellar output) in the cerebro-cerebellum, all recorded from a monkey performing step-tracking movements of the right wrist. We found that the firing rates of one population could be reconstructed as a weighted linear sum of those of preceding populations. We then went on to investigate if the current outputs of the cerebellum (dentate cells) could predict the future inputs of the cerebellum (mossy fibers). The firing rates of mossy fibers at time t + t 1 could be well reconstructed from as a weighted sum of firing rates of dentate cells at time t , thereby proving that the dentate activities contained predictive information about the future inputs. The average goodness-of-fit ( R 2 ) decreased moderately from 0.89 to 0.86 when t 1 was increased from 20 to 100 ms, hence indicating that the prediction is able to compensate the latency of sensory feedback. The linear equations derived from the firing rates resembled those of a predictor known as Kalman filter composed of prediction and filtering steps. In summary, our analysis of cerebellar activities supports the forward-model hypothesis of the cerebellum.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12311-018-0996-4

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the authors' data set, there were two functionally distinct populations of MFs; one contributed to the prediction step and the other to the filtering step.

    “Consistent with the anatomical observations, there were two functionally distinct populations of MFs in our data set (Tanaka et al., 2019). One population of MFs contributed to the prediction step and the other population of MFs contributed to the filtering step.”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Tanaka et al., 2019

    The Results section, “Statistical Comparison of MF–PC and MF–DC Projections” (page unavailable), reports that PCs and DCs received projections from different MF populations. The Discussion, “Linear Equations and Interpretation as Kalman Filter” (page unavailable), maps MF-to-PC activity to a prediction step and MF-to-DC activity to a filtering step, but explicitly calls that Kalman-filter interpretation speculative. The claim presents those functional roles as established contributions rather than a proposed interpretation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent study clarified controversial results by showing that the dentate nuclei cells firing rates could predict the future inputs to the cerebellum, strongly supporting the forward model.

    “A recent study clarified these controversial results by showing that the dentate nuclei cells firing rates could predict the future inputs to the cerebellum, strongly supporting the forward model (Tanaka et al., 2019).”
  • The firing rates of DNCs were also well reconstructed as a weighted linear sum of MFs and PCs.

    “the firing rates of DNCs were also well reconstructed as a weighted linear sum of MFs and PCs”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Tanaka et al., 2019

  • A linear weighted sum of MF firing rates reconstructed PC firing rates most parsimoniously, in comparison with a thresholding model, a quadratic model or an FIR model.

    “A linear weighted sum of MF firing rates reconstructed PC firing rates most parsimoniously, in comparison with a thresholding model, a quadratic model or an FIR model.”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Tanaka et al., 2019

  • The finding that cerebellar output contains predictive information about future cerebellar input supports the internal-forward-model hypothesis of the cerebellum.

    “which in turn supports the internal-forward-model hypothesis of the cerebellum.”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Tanaka et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tanaka, H., Ishikawa, T., & Kakei, S.
Affiliations
  • Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JP)
  • Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science (JP)
Corresponding author
Tanaka, Hirokazu
Venue
The Cerebellum
Published
2019-01-09
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
349-371
ISSN
  • 1473-4222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4230
OpenAlex
W2909619217
Cited by
75
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Cerebellum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • JAIST Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (25430007, 26120005, 16K12476, (Program for Advancing Strategic International Networks to Accelerate the Circulation of Talented Researchers, and Embodied-Brain Systems Science, 14580784, 15016008, 16015212, 21500319 26120003, 24650224)
  • Precursory Research for Embryonic Science and Technology
  • the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • NBRP “Japanese Monkeys” through the National BioResource Project
  • Kurata Memorial Hitachi Science and Technology Foundation
  • Tateishi Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
cerebellum, forward model, state prediction, mossy fibers, Purkinje cells, dentate nucleus, Kalman filter, monkeys
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebellum, Computer Simulation, Macaca, Male, Models, Neurological, Movement, Psychomotor Performance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review