Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 349

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Competition between Feedback Loops Underlies Normal and Pathological Dynamics in the Basal Ganglia

Open access
Leblois, Arthur, Boraud, Thomas, Meissner, Wassilios, Bergman, Hagai, Hansel, David·2006·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Experiments performed in normal animals suggest that the basal ganglia (BG) are crucial in motor program selection. BG are also involved in movement disorders. In particular, BG neuronal activity in parkinsonian animals and patients is more oscillatory and more synchronous than in normal individuals. We propose a new model for the function and dysfunction of the motor part of BG. We hypothesize that the striatum, the subthalamic nucleus, the internal pallidum (GPi), the thalamus, and the cortex are involved in closed feedback loops. The direct (cortex–striatum–GPi–thalamus–cortex) and the hyperdirect loops (cortex–subthalamic nucleus–GPi–thalamus–cortex), which have different polarities, play a key role in the model. We show that the competition between these two loops provides the BG–cortex system with the ability to perform motor program selection. Under the assumption that dopamine potentiates corticostriatal synaptic transmission, we demonstrate that, in our model, moderate dopamine depletion leads to a complete loss of action selection ability. High depletion can lead to synchronous oscillations. These modifications of the network dynamical state stem from an imbalance between the feedback in the direct and hyperdirect loops when dopamine is depleted. Our model predicts that the loss of selection ability occurs before the appearance of oscillations, suggesting that Parkinson's disease motor impairments are not directly related to abnormal oscillatory activity. Another major prediction of our model is that synchronous oscillations driven by the hyperdirect loop appear in BG after inactivation of the striatum.

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.5050-05.2006

Cites

86 of 86 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

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

Show all 86 references

Cited by

See all 349

Metadata

Authors
Leblois, A., Boraud, T., Meissner, W., Bergman, H., & Hansel, D.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-03-29
Volume
26
Issue
13
Pages
3567-3583
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1970994015
Cited by
349
References
86
FWCI
12.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Competition between Feedback Loops Underlies Normal and Pathological Dynamics in the Basal Ganglia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.5050-05.2006
The paper
Leblois, A., Boraud, T., Meissner, W., Bergman, H., & Hansel, D. (2006). Competition between Feedback Loops Underlies Normal and Pathological Dynamics in the Basal Ganglia. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.5050-05.2006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.