Cited by 34Motor Control and AdaptationVestibular and auditory disordersEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Contribution of the cerebellum to predictive motor control and its evaluation in ataxic patients

Open access
Kakei, Shinji, Lee, Jongho, Mitoma, Hiroshi, Tanaka, Hirokazu, Manto, Mario, Hampe, Christiane S.·2019·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Goal-directed movements are predictive and multimodal in nature, especially for moving targets. For instance, during a reaching movement for a moving target, humans need to predict both motion of the target and movement of the limb. Recent computational studies show that the cerebellum predicts current and future states of the body and its environment using internal forward models. Sensory feedback signals from the periphery have delays in reaching the central nervous system, ranging between tens to hundreds of milliseconds. It is well known in engineering that feedback control based on time-delayed inputs can result in oscillatory and often unstable movements. In contrast, the brain predicts a current state from a previous state using forward models. This predictive mechanism most likely underpins stable and dexterous control of reaching movements. Although the cerebro-cerebellum has long been suggested as loci of various forward models, few methods are available to evaluate accuracy of the forward models in patients with cerebellar ataxia. Recently, we developed a non-invasive method to analyze receipt of motor commands in terms of movement kinematics for the wrist joint (Br/Kr ratio). In the present study, we have identified two components (F1 and F2) of the smooth pursuit movement. We found that the two components were in different control modes with different Br/Kr ratios. The major F1 component in a lower frequency range encodes both velocity and position of the moving target (higher Br/Kr ratio) to synchronize movement of the wrist joint with motion of the target in a predictive manner. The minor F2 component in a higher frequency range is biased to position control in order to generate intermittent small step-wise movements. In cerebellar patients, the F1 component shows a selective decrease in the Br/Kr ratio, which is correlated with decrease in accuracy of the pursuit movement. We conclude that the Br/Kr ratio of the F1 component provides a unique parameter to evaluate accuracy of the predictive control. We also discuss the pathophysiological and clinical implications for clinical ataxiology.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00216

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Cerebellar patients rely more importantly on visual feedback as compared to healthy controls as if they were missing an internal forward model.

    “cerebellar patients rely more importantly on visual feedback as compared to healthy controls as if they were missing an internal forward model (Day et al., 1998; Bhanpuri et al., 2013; Kakei et al., 2019; Tanaka et al., 2020; Zimmet et al., 2020).”

    From The Forward Model: A Unifying Theory for the Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Control and Sense of Agency (2021) · cites this paper as Kakei et al., 2019

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports impaired forward-model prediction in cerebellar patients while their corrective control based on sensory feedback remains intact; it also suggests that delayed prediction may force greater dependence on feedback control. The paper does not establish that patients rely more specifically on visual feedback than healthy controls. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some deficits observed in cerebellar patients could be explained by an impaired forward model resulting in increased dependence on delayed visual feedback.

    “Altogether, this suggests that some of the deficits observed in cerebellar patients could be explained by an impaired forward model resulting in increased dependence on delayed visual feedback (Kakei et al., 2019; Cabaraux et al., 2020; Tanaka et al., 2020; Zimmet et al., 2020).”

    From The Forward Model: A Unifying Theory for the Role of the Cerebellum in Motor Control and Sense of Agency (2021) · cites this paper as Kakei et al., 2019

    The Introduction says cerebellar patients may have impaired forward-model prediction while retaining sensory-feedback control. The Discussion says delayed prediction may force them to depend on feedback control, destabilizing wrist movement. Although the task used a visible cursor and target (Materials and Methods), the paper does not specifically establish increased dependence on delayed visual feedback rather than sensory feedback more generally; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The prediction delayed by this amount is no longer predictive and may force patients to rely on pure feedback control, further destabilizing the ataxic wrist movement.

    “The prediction delayed by this amount is no longer predictive and may force the patients to rely on the pure feedback control, further destabilizing the wrist movement ataxic (Kakei et al., 2019).”

    From The Cerebro-Cerebellum as a Locus of Forward Model: A Review (2020) · cites this paper as Kakei 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
Kakei, S., Lee, J., Mitoma, H., Tanaka, H., Manto, M., & Hampe, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science (JP)
  • Komatsu University (JP)
  • Tokyo Medical University (JP)
  • Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JP)
  • University of Mons (BE)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Kakei, Shinji
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2019-06-26
Volume
13
Pages
216-216
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953987795
Cited by
34
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
2.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (16ek0109048h0003)
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K01496)
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
cerebellum, predictive motor control, forward model, cerebellar ataxia, smooth pursuit eye movements, position control, speed control

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