CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190Motor Control and AdaptationVestibular and auditory disordersVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 161 of the 162 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cerebellar Contributions to Adaptive Control of Saccades in Humans

Open access
Xu-Wilson, Minnan, Chen-Harris, Haiyin, Zee, David S., Shadmehr, Reza·2009·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.3115-09.2009PMC PMC2994243
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The cerebellum may monitor motor commands and through internal feedback correct for anticipated errors. Saccades provide a test of this idea because these movements are completed too quickly for sensory feedback to be useful. Earlier, we reported that motor commands that accelerate the eyes toward a constant amplitude target showed variability. Here, we demonstrate that this variability is not random noise, but is due to the cognitive state of the subject. Healthy people showed within-saccade compensation for this variability with commands that arrived later in the same saccade. However, in people with cerebellar damage, the same variability resulted in dysmetria. This ability to correct for variability in the motor commands that initiated a saccade was a predictor of each subject's ability to learn from endpoint errors. In a paradigm in which a target on the horizontal meridian jumped vertically during the saccade (resulting in an endpoint error), the adaptive response exhibited two timescales: a fast timescale that learned quickly from endpoint error but had poor retention, and a slow timescale that learned slowly but had strong retention. With cortical cerebellar damage, the fast timescale of adaptation was effectively absent, but the slow timescale was less impaired. Therefore, the cerebellum corrects for variability in the motor commands that initiate saccades within the same movement via an adaptive response that not only exhibits strong sensitivity to previous endpoint errors, but also rapid forgetting.

Overview

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3115-09.2009

Cites

161 of 161 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Robinson DA (1975) in Basic mechanisms of ocular motility and their clinical implications, Oculomotor control signals, eds BachyRita P Lennerstrand G (Pergamon, Oxford, UK), pp 337–374.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 190

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Xu-Wilson, M., Chen-Harris, H., Zee, D. S., & Shadmehr, R.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
2009-10-14
Volume
29
Issue
41
Pages
12930-12939
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.3115-09.2009
PMC
PMC2994243
OpenAlex
W2064904949
Cited by
190
References
162
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (EY01849, NS37422)
  • National Eye Institute (EY-01849, R21EY019581, EY19581, R01EY001849)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007057)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS062513, NS 37422, R01NS037422, R56NS037422)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
cerebellum, saccades, internal feedback, adaptive control, dysmetria, cerebellar lesions, learning retention, forgetting, eye movements
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Biofeedback, Psychology, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cerebellar Diseases, Cerebellum, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Noise, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Saccades, Statistics as Topic, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Calcium Channels, Case-Control Studies, Calcium Channels, N-Type

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