Cerebellar neurocognition: insights into the bottom of the brain
Abstract
The traditional view on the core functions of the cerebellum consists of the regulation of motor coordination, balance and motor speech. However, during the past decades results from neuroanatomical, neuroimaging and clinical studies have substantially extended the functional role of the cerebellum to cognitive and affective regulation. Neuroanatomical studies convincingly showed cerebellar connectivity with associative areas of the cerebral cortex involved in higher cognitive functioning, while functional neuroimaging provided evidence of cerebellar activation during a variety of cognitive tasks. In addition, more systematic neuropsychological research performed in patients with cerebellar lesions and the development of more sensitive neuropsychological tests allowed clinicians to identify significant cognitive and affective disturbances following cerebellar damage. In this review, an overview is presented of the cerebellar role in a variety of cognitive processes, such as executive functioning, memory, learning, attention, visuo-spatial regulation, language and behavioral-affective modulation. In addition, recent evidence with regard to cerebellar induced clinical entities such as the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) and the posterior fossa syndrome (PFS), will be discussed. Although extensive research has substantially broadened the insights in the cognitive and affective role of the cerebellum, the precise nature of the cerebellar contribution to cognitive and affective regulation is not yet clear. In this review experimental and clinical data will be discussed that substantiate the presumed neurobiological mechanisms underlying the cognitive and affective modulatory role of the cerebellum.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A never-institutionalized community comparison group was matched to the other groups by child age and sex.
“A never-institutionalized community comparison group was matched to the other groups by child age and sex.31”
From Motor outcomes in children exposed to early psychosocial deprivation (2014) · cites this paper as [31]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 144 · Cited by 342
- Authors
- Baillieux, H., Smet, H. J. D., Paquier, P. F., De Deyn, P. P., & Mariën, P.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
- Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Mariën, Peter
- Venue
- Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 763-773
- ISSN
- 0303-8467 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968021864
- Cited by
- 342
- References
- 144
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion)
- VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- cerebellum, cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome, posterior fossa syndrome, cerebellar connectivity, executive function, memory, learning, attention, language, emotional modulation, cerebellar lesions
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Animals, Attention, Cerebellar Diseases, Cerebellum, Cognition, Humans, Learning, Memory, Psychomotor Performance, Recognition, Psychology
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