I think that it is difficult to differentiate cortical and cerebellar functions because the cerebellum operates through activation of the cortex. The primary difference is that cerebellar functions are rote functions and cortex functions are not. The idea is that the cerebellum operates to memorize patterns of action while the cerebral cortex acts without the patterns when it is operating alone.

Let me try to give some fantastic advices.   We understand that both elements of the brain are interconnected with each other (cortex and cerebellum). We need to think about the method that will determine the realized change in the tone of the skeletal muscles. The cerebral cortex is responsible for this control.

On the other hand, it is necessary to accurately determine unintentional change in the tone of skeletal muscle, human posture and balance. The cerebellum is responsible for this control.

This technique will highlight the dominant function (cortical or cerebellar).

Vladimir, I am not certain, but are you saying the difference is in intention? That cerebral control is intentional control? Because I am not sure that always holds true.

I mean I am sure that intentional control is cerebral, I am just not sure that unintentional control is always cerebellar in nature.

This was stated by Ivan Sechenov and Ivan Pavlov.

I'm just trying to find a way to differentiate the functions of the two parts of the brain.

What about limbic control, that is not always intentional but some of it comes from the cerebral cortex limbic areas.

You are right. Intentional control is cerebral. But, please evaluate motor situations. Unintentional control is cerebellar.

Again you are right. There limbic and cerebellar control, which is carried out unconsciously. But there is a connection of the cerebellum (and limbic) to the neurons of the cerebral cortex. And then the movement initiates outside the cortex, made consciously.

THIS QUESTION IS EXTREMELY TRICKY, AND NOW I THINK WE ARE ASKING MORE THAN ONE QUESTION. CEREBRO, OR NEOCORTICAL CONTROL, OCCURS THROUGH THE CORTICAL-STRIATAL-PALLIDAL-THALAMO-CORTICAL LOOP. THE NEOCORTEX MUST FIRST ACTIVATE STRIATUM (CAUDATE/PUTAMEN); IF ACTIVATING THROUGH DIRECT (D1) PATHWAY, STRIATUM INHIBITS GLOBUS PALLIDUS INTERNA, WHICH THEN RELEASES SPECIFIC THALAMIC REGION TO AMPLIFY CORTICAL REGION NECESSARY TO RELEASE APPROPRIATE BEHAVIORAL/COGNITIVE PROGRAM; IF NEOCORTICAL INPUT ACTIVATES INDIRECT (D2) PATHWAY, STRIATUM ACTIVATES GLOBUS PALLIDUS EXTERNA, WHICH HAS INHIBITORY CONNECTIONS TO SUBTHALAMIC NUCLEUS; THE STN THEN ACTIVATES THE GPi, INCREASING INHIBITION ON THALAMUS, WHICH SUPPRESSES BEHAVIOR. SO, REGARDLESS OF CORTICAL INTENTION, WITHOUT ACTIVATION OF STRIATUM THROUGH DIRECT AND/OR INDIRECT PATHWAYS, INTENTION IS DISTURBED, EXACTLY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN PARKINSON'S AND HUNTINGTON'S DISEASES; SO EVEN NEOCORTICAL INTENTION NEEDS SUPPORT OF BASAL GANGLIA SYSTEM; THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS TOPOGRAPHICALLY ORGANIZED. THE HYPERDIRECT, OR STN PATHWAY, BY-PASSES STRIATUM TO IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL BEHAVIOR THROUGH MASSIVE, DIFFUSE ACTIVATION OF GPi, WHICH AGAIN INHIBITS THALAMUS. SO YES, NOT ALL BEHAVIOR IS UNDER VOLUNTARY CONTROL.

THE NEOCORTEX IS CONNECTED TO CEREBELLUM IN FOLLOWING WAY; CORTEX TO BASIS PONS; PONS, THROUGH MOSSY FIBER SYSTEM, CONNECTS TO CEREBELLAR CORTEX, WHICH PROJECTS TO TONICALLY ACTIVE DEEP CEREBELLAR NUCLEI, WHICH PROJECTS BACK TO THALAMUS, THEN BACK TO CEREBRAL CORTEX. THIS CIRCUITRY IS A MODULATORY SYSTEM, BELIEVED TO PERFORM INDENTICAL FUNCTION ON ALL INFORMATION, DEPENDENT UPON ITS SET OF PARTICULAR INPUTS AND OUTPUTS; THIS MODULATORY SYSTEM IS TOPOGRAPHICALLY ORGANIZED AS WELL. DIRECT CORTICO-CORTICO "FEEDBACK" OPERATES SLOWLY, AND CEREBELLUM FUNCTIONS AS A PREDICTOR OF SENSORI-MOTOR OUTCOMES; THROUGH BEHAVIORAL REPETITION, CEREBELLUM LEARNS TO PREDICT PROPER SENSORI-MOTOR OUTCOME, PROJECTING MOST EFFICIENT BEHAVIORAL PROGRAM TO BE RETAINED IN CORTEX. SO CEREBELLUM IS NECESSARY FOR BEHAVIORAL/COGNITIVE AUTOMATION AND ADAPTATION OF BEHAVIOR ACROSS CHANGING CONTEXTS. MOTOR DYSMETRIA, SOMETIMES UNFORTUNATELY TERMED "INTENTION TREMOR," REFLECTS INABILITY OF CEREBELLUM TO ADJUST MOVEMENT(COGNITION) TO CHANGING NEEDS OF THE MOMENT AS BEHAVIOR IS EXECUTED. THESE CEREBELLAR PROCESSES ARE OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUS CORTICAL AWARENESS.  SO "INTENTION" HAS DIFFERENT MEANING, DEPENDENT UPON REFERENCE TO CORTICO-STRIATAL VERSUS CEREBRO-CEREBELLAR SYSTEMS. CEREBELLUM IS SORT OF A "QUALITY CONTROL" CENTER. IN THE MOST SIMPLISTIC TERMS, FRONTAL SYSTEMS CAN INTENTIONALLY INITIATE BEHAVIOR, BUT THIS IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY; CORTICAL-STRIATAL INTERACTIONS ESTABLISH NEW "PROGRAMS," SUPPORT OF BASAL GANGLIA IS REQUIRED FOR VOLITIONAL CONTROL, AND CEREBELLUM IS VERTEBRATE BRAIN'S QUALITY MODULATOR, SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS CONTROLLING RATE, RHYTHM, AND FORCE OF BEHAVIOR, NECESSARY FOR APPRIPRIATE COGNITIVE, AFFECTIVE, AND BEHAVIORAL METRIC. NEOCORTEX AND CEREBELLUM OPERATE AS AN ENSEMBLE, SO THAT PRINCIPLE OF DIASCHISIS BECOMES CRITICAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE; BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHICAL ORGANIZATION, THERE IS NO SINGLE LITMUS TEST ALLOWING FOR DIFFERENTIATION; THERE ARE SOME "TESTS" THAT ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE INTEGRITY OF CEREBELLUM, SUCH AS EYE-BLINK CONDITIONING; FINGER-TO-NOSE CAN BE USEFUL IN OBSERVING DISTURBANCE OF PROGRAM (CORTICAL), INTENTION (VOLOTIONAL CONTROL, INITIATION), AND DYSMETRIA (CEREBELLAR), BUT ULTIMATELY, MULTIPLE SYSTEMS MUST BE EXAMINED, DEPENDENT UPON EXTENT OF SYSTEMS INVOLMENT, TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE BEHAVIORAL SAMPLES. REFERENCES? THERE ARE TONS. ANYTHING BY SCHMAHMANN AND/OR CO-AUTHORS SUCH AS SHERMAN, NUMEROUS OTHERS; EASIEST TO LOCATE; SUBCORTICAL STRUCTURES AND COGNITION, 2009, IS A GOOD, BASIC SUMMARY REFERENCE; I WILL ATTACH A FEW OTHERS. LARGE FONT FOR MY VISION; NOT FOR EMPHASIS. - LK

It is clear that in almost all parts of the brain are interconnected. But it is necessary to find the conditions that will allow to evaluate the intramural activity of the cell population (core structure) in neural networks.

VLADIMIR,

IN WHICH CASE, I MUST HAVE ENTIRELY MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISREAD THE QUESTION AND PREVIOUS REPLIES; MY APOLOGIES. -LK

That is really educational ! ! ! My clinical practice mostly involve children with disabilities.  Most of them have seizures and lose control over their regulatory behaviors.  My idea was: " If we have problems with working memory, control, set shifting and word fluency (which are functions of cortex) then why can't we shift these functions on better functioning area that is cerebellum.  

What I have noticed is:  children who have problems with cerebellum are much more serious than with only cortex (e.g., in some cases of seizure disorder, cognitive functions are absolutely fine) but if cerebellum is disturbed then the condition  is poor.  

Recently, Most of the free time (which is a luxury! ! !) I spent on studying the answers and also going through some research on evolution of cerebellum and neocortex for answers.  

Rakic :  The evolution of neocortex:  perspectives from developmental biology doi:10.1038/nrn2719

Bell :  Evolution of cerebellum-like structures (Brain, behavior and evolution, Karger)   

One thing is clear:  Cerebellum processes sensory inputs and predicts the possible outcome.    The reason I suppose, and as Koziol has mentioned,  is for action possibilities of what cortex is processing in abstract.  (For e.g, the idea of jumping from a height:  May be (if I have understood from the above answers) cortex generates the idea and when actual performance is in question cerebellum process the information and tells whether it would be fatal and if it is fatal, then cerebellum pushes the idea to drop the idea and supresses the action.  However, if we habituate the cerebellum by initially jumping from known heights then on the basis of habit the cerebellum eventually promotes the actual sequence without inhibition and the jump will be successful. That is if cortex and cerebellum has a exact match then action will occur.

But can it be possible that cerebellum individually thinks and execute the action without cortical intervention?  

What if hypothetically, the cerebellum circuitry is connected to basal ganglia instead of cortex.  Then will the cerebellum function like cortex?

ANOTHER DECEPTIVELY SIMPLE QUESTION THAT DESERVES  A NOVEL FOR A REPLY.  YES; THE BASAL GANGLIA AND CEREBELLUM ARE RECIPROCALLY CONNECTED; THIS MAKES GOOD PHYLOGENETIC SENSE; THE BASAL GANGLIA ARE AN INSTRUMENTAL LEARNING SYSTEM; SEE NAKANISHI, PRIOR REPLY; IN A SENSE, THE BASAL GANGLIA "LEARN" TO PREDICT REWARD OUTCOMES. THE CEREBELLUM LIES OUTSIDE OF CORTEX AND HAS A UNIQUE INFRASTRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE; IT ALWAYS WORKS TOGETHER WITH NEOCORTEX . NATURE'S SOLUTIONS TO ADAPTATION HAVE NEVER RELIED UPON SOPHISTICATED COGNITION AS A PRIMARY MODE OF ADAPTATION; THE NEOCORTEX ALLOWS FOR A WIDE RANGE OF SENSORY PROCESSING ABILITIES IN THE PRIMATE; IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR INCREASINGLY SOPHISTICATED FINE MOTOR MOVEMENTS; BUT THE CEREBELLUM IS A MODULATOR; IT IS NOT A GENERATOR OF COGNITION OR BEHAVIOR; CEREBELLUM AUTOMATES AND "FINE TUNES" BEHAVIORS ACROSS SITUATIONS. THE CEREBELLUM "COPIES" THE CONTENT OF CORTICAL WORKING MEMORY AND WITH REPETITION, IT FORMS A "CONTROL MODEL" TO AUTOMATED THAT BEHAVIOR; THE MOST EFFICIENT REPRESENTATION OF THAT BEHAVIOR IS THEN RETAINED IN NEOCORTEX. AND, ALL "WORKING MEMORY" IS NOT AT ALL EXPLICIT AND UNDER NEOCORTICAL CONTROL; THE PURPOSE OF WORKING MEMORY IS TO GUIDE PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIORS, BUT WHATEVER THE CONTENT OF WORKING MEMORY, THIS MUST BE LINKED TO ACTIVITY; EXACTLY WHAT IS MISSING FROM CORTICAL CONSTRUCTS OF WORKING MEMORY. AND, THE INTEGRITY OF THE CEREBELLUM IS NECESSARY FOR PERCEPTION-ACTION LINKAGES; THE "PARADIGM" IS NOT "PERCEIVE-THINK-AND RESPOND" AS A PRIMARY MODE OF ADAPTATION; THIS MODE IS OPERATIONAL FOR PROBLEM-SOLVING IN NOVEL SITUATIONS; THE PROPOSED PARADIGM, IN CISEK, PRIOR REPLY, IS ONE OF CONSTANT, ONGOING SENSORI-MOTOR INTERACTION, EVIDENT IN 95% OF DAILY ACTIVITY; THE CORTEX AND BASAL GANGLIA ARE CRITICAL FOR ESTABLISHING NEW BEHAVIORAL SEQUENCES OR LINKAGES AND FOR SHIFTING AND MODIFYING EXISTING BEHAVIORS, BUT IN AN ONGOING WAY; BUT THE CEREBELLUM IS CRITICAL FOR THE AUTOMATION OF THESE SEQUENCES, WHATEVER THEY ARE, EITHER SEQUENCES OF PERCEPTIONS, IDEAS, OR ACTIVITIES/BEHAVIORS. AND THIS IS LIKELY WHY CHILDREN WITH EARLY ONSET CEREBELLAR DISORDERS NEVER ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE, AND WHY ADULTS CAN STILL FUNCTION ADAPTIVELY IN MANY CASES, DEPENDENT UPON EXTENT OF IMPAIRMENT - AN ADULT HAS YEARS OF "LEARNED" AND "AUTOMATED" SEQUENCES STORED IN NEOCORTEX TO RELY UPON; A CHILD WITH CEREBELLAR IMPAIRMENT DOES NOT; IN FACT, A RECENT PAPER PROPOSES THAT CEREBELLUM MIGHT ACTUALLY DETERMINE THE TRAJECTORY OF NEOCORTICAL DEVELOPMENT(ATTACHED). IN SHORT, THE VERTEBRATE BRAIN HAS TWO SYSTEMS, A CORTICAL-BASAL GANGLIA (REWARD) SYSTEM TO ANTICIPATE REWARD OUTCOMES, AND A CEREBRO-CEREBELLAR SYSTEM TO PREDICT SENSORI-MOTOR AND/OR OUTCOMES OF THOUGHT SEQUENCES; HOWEVER, THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE UNITS, THE FUNCTIONS OF THESE SYSTEMS ARE NOT SUBSTITUTED, AND THE TWO FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS ARE NECESSARY FOR ADAPTATION; SORT OF "STANDARD OPERATING EQUIPMENT," INSTEAD OF TRANSFERING A FUNCTION FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER; AND, THIS IS EVIDENT BY FOLLOWING THE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NEURONAL STRUCTURES OF NEOCORTEX, BASAL GANGLIA, AND CEREBELLUM; THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF CORTEX, BASAL GANGLIA REGIONS, AND CEREBELLUM ARE ALL DISTINCT. SEE "THE MYTH OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONING" (KOZIOL, VOL.II,SPRINGER, 2014) FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE A FEW MORE RELEVANT PAPERS.

Sorry, also. Please accept my apologies as well. We understand how unique and diverse communication of brain cells. I admire nature, which found the option of maintaining "independence" of the functions of individual cell populations in the conglomerate of neural networks. In this case, the brain normally functions as a unit. And in the pathology begins "split." I am sure that the community people should learn a lot from the nature of the brain.

FROM ONE "DR. K" TO ANOTHER, NO APOLOGY NECESSARY; I THINK WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE; WE SOMETIMES MIGHT DECIDE UPON DIFFERENT NOMENCLATURE, AND EMAIL CAN COMMUNICATE ONLY WORDS WITH LITERAL MEANING, SO THESE TYPES OF MESSAGES HAVE LIMITATIONS. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT WE CAN VIEW THINGS FROM A DIFFERENT "LENS," AND CAN ESTABLISH INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION. THIS CAN ONLY BE OF BENEFIT.  - LK

I try to do that using neurological soft signs. If a patient shows several of these symptoms: poor balance, dysdiadochokinesia (and automatization problems in general), impaired eye tracking, nystagmus, dysmetria, slurred speech, hypotonia, ataxia and intention tremor probably their cognitive problems are due to cerebellar dysfunction. In my doctoral thesis (1990) I got a factor of cerebellar signs in 129 young people with intellectual disability using a battery of neurological soft signs. At first glance many of them seem to have a dysexecutive syndrome but their problems are greater in automated (cerebellum) that organizing for action (frontal).

I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO READ THE 1990 THESIS. IS IT POSSIBLE TO FORWARD ME A COPY? - LK

[email protected]

@S.R. Joshi,

While it may seem attractive to substitute the cerebellum for the cerebrum, there are distinct architectural differences. The cerebrum consists mostly of  six layered columns, while the cerebellum only consists of three layers. One of which is the purkinje cell layer which has uniquely shaped cells. Functionally this works completely different than the column in the cerebrum.

The difference lies in the architecture of the memory that it creates. The cortex is a dual purpose memory where implicit and explicit memories are both available and the cerebellum is purely implicit. If they were interchangeable the result would be loss of consciousness when you shifted over to the cerebellum.

THIS IS EXACTLY RIGHT; THE INFRASTRUCTURES OF THE NEOCORTEX, THE BASAL GANGLIA, AND THE CELLULAR "UNIFORMITY" OF THE CEREBELLUM ARE COMPLETLY DIFFERENT. THE CEREBELLUM IS A MODULATOR, NOT A GENERATOR OF SENSORY PROCESSING, MOTOR FUNCTION, OR THINKING; THERE CANNOT BE "SUBSTITUTIONS." THE CEREBELLUM LIKELY RESIDES OUTSIDE THE CORTEX FOR THIS REASON; IT PERFORMS ONLY ONE OPERATION, ON WHATEVER INFORMATION IT RECEIVES, DEPENDENT UPON THE PARTICULAR SUBSETS OF MODULAR INPUTS;  AND THIS MODULATORY FUNCTION REQUIRES ITS OWN SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURE, WITH A NEURAL COMPOSITION THAT IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM RESEMBLES THE NEURAL STRUCTURE OF CEREBRAL CORTEX, NOR IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH IT. THE TYPE OF "SHIFTING" IMPLIED IN THIS QUESTION IS IMPOSSIBLE. YOU CANNOT SUBSTITUTE AN APPLE FOR AN ORANGE AND OBTAIN THE SAME TASTING PRODUCT; SIMILARLY, YOU CANNOT "MIX" THE FUNCTION OF ONE BRAIN SYSTEM WITH ANOTHER. A CAR WAS NOT "DESIGNED" TO FLOAT ON WATER; A BOAT WAS NOT "DESIGNED" TO MOVE ON A HIGHWAY.  THE BOTTOM LINE HERE REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.  THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO A RESTAURANT MENU THAT STATES, "NO SUBSTITUTIONS" FOR ORDERING A MIX OF A MEAL.

While Leonard and I disagree on the actual function of the Cerebellum, I say that it is sensitive to sequences, and he says that it is modulatory, There is no question that it has a unique cellular architecture even in comparison to other three layer cortexes. To add to this, the white matter supporting it, and the cerebrum are also quite different. One of the reasons that the cerebral cortex is so big, is the high level of mylinated fibers that are linked to the relatively small layer of cells that do the work. The cerebellum is not nearly so interconnected. Which means that it can be much more compact.

DEAR DR. SMITH,

I DON'T THINK WE ARE SAYING ANYTHING DIFFERENT; I THINK WE HAVE A NOMENCLATURE, OPERATIONAL DEFINITION ISSUE.  THE MODULATORY FUNCTION IS AN ANTICIPATORY, PREDICTIVE MECHANISM; IT LEARNS HOW TO ANTICIPATE SENSORIMOTOR OUTCOMES; WHAT IS SEQUENCING? IT IS A SERIES OF "EVENTS," ONE AFTER ANOTHER, IN PROPER "SEQUENCE."  CEREBELLUM IS SENSITIVE TO SEQUENCING BECAUSE IT PREDICTS THE NEXT LINK IN THE SEQUENCE; WITH REPETITION, THIS ALOWS FOR AUTOMATION OF BEHAVIORAL, MOVEMENT, AND EVEN IDEATIONAL SEQUENCES; CORTEX OPERATES TOO SLOWLY; CEREBELLUM ALLOWS FOR PREDICTION OF NEXT ITEM IN SEQUENCE, AUTOMATING SEQUENCES, BY-PASSING DIRECT CORTICAL FEEDBACK, SO THAT WE CAN FUNCTION IN "REAL TIME." IT ANTICIPATES PERCEPTION-ACTION SEQUENCES; AUTOMATED SEQUENCE IS RETAINED IN PREMOTOR CORTEX. SEE GALEA, J.M., ET AL, CEREB CORTEX, 2011, 21(8):P.1761-70; ALSO, OTHERS ATTACHED.  LK

Thank you Graeme Smith and Koziol,  

I had no idea of architectural differences between cortex and cerebellum ( 6 and 3 layers respectively)  and Consciousness did put me to lot of thinking.   

I would like to know whether our action patterns have developed consciousness in cortex (so the demand for evolution of 6 layers)?

secondly, if we hypothesize the question of substitution, may be it might lead to different kind of consciousness and different way of seeing the world.

What happens if such kind of connections are evolved over a period of time and adapt  to the environment in humans?

In pathology, anyhow cortex is far from consciousness, primitive systems might have an answer?

Evolution always considered less is better, but why then 6 layers and 3 layers?

@S.R. Joshi,

Another question that would fill a book.

I am working on a consciousness theory that has conscious trains of thought based in the Cerebrum, but consciousness isn't just one thing, it's a range of things, and some of them are based in the optical tectum, known in humans as the Superior Colliculus.

The nature of the Cortex is well documented, but the reasons for the elaboration from three layers to six layers are not well understood. Personally I think, like Domasio that it is a dual mode memory where dispositional elements are linked to mapped elements and implicit memory is mapped to explicit memory but that is based on the idea that the superficial layers define implicit memory and the deep layers allow for clustering into chunks. The transition point is something called a functional cluster which was described by Dr. Edelman.

The primary difference then, is that the 6 layers allow the transformation of implicit memory to addressable and thus repeatable memories. This represents a change in the design of the brain which allows it to take memories out of band and consider them.

While three layer cortex is capable of implicit memory, it is not capable of translating that memory into chunks, and so there is no chance of out of band thinking. So yes you would have a different type of consciousness, but it would be impoverished with respect to human consciousness.

I found these articles helpful:

Kevin W. Greve and Matthew S. Stanford, Curtis Sutton and Anne L. Foundas, Cognitive and Emotional Sequelae of Cerebellar Infarct: A Case Report, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 455–469, 1999

Jeremy D. Schmahmann and Janet C. Sherman,  The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome, Brain (1998), 121, 561–579

Peter Mariëna,b,c,*, RafBrounsa,b, SebastiaanEngelborghsa,b, Peggy Wackeniera,b, Jo Verhoevend, BertenCeulemanse and Peter P. De Deyna,b, Cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome without global mental retardation in two relatives with Gillespie syndromen, c o r t e x 4 4 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5 4 – 6 7

Jeremy D. Schmahmann, M.D.,  Cognition, emotion and the cerebellum National Ataxia Foundation Annual membership meeting, Las Vegas NV March 29th, 2008

Jeremy D. Schmahmann and David Caplan, Cognition, Emotion and the Cerebellum, Ataxia Unit, Cognitive/Behavioural Neurology Unit, Department of Neurologe, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA, doi:10.1093/brain/awh729

Yours,

Stefaan

Dr. Decorte has provided what I consider standard, very relevant additional references that should be meaningful in taking a step towards answering the original questions. In my opinion, since the neuronal make-up of the cortex, of the basal ganglia, and the infrastructure of the cerebellum are known, other replies that are idiosyncratic and that take a reader astray because they are not based upon neuroscientific principles should be avoided; thus far, since Saturday, a very considerable number of papers have been both posted for reading and cited for the purpose of obtaining and reading. I am wondering if some contributors to this discussion have even read and/or achieved a comprehensive understanding of the treasure-chest of information that has already been referenced. The logic behind this statement is hopefully obvious; some of the statements made in certain replies have no support in science, and some are actually contradictory to known, taught, accepted principles. I also admit I am biased because I believe that opinions must be derived from a well understood knowledge base that is supported by neuroscientific evidence, and not founded upon hunches and idiosyncracies that can easily be refuted; these replies remain misleading because they cannot be supported yet might be "believed." To be blunt, some statements and replies simply make zero sense, giving the impression that very relevant source material already offered was either misunderstood or completely ignored. What motivation would anyone have for participating in a discussion after basic, current, very relevant information has been offered as a sincere effort, and then disregarded, which is an obvious conclusion, easily derived from certain subsequent replies? - LK

Hallo, Everybody after a long time !  Wanted to share something on cerebellum.

Today's News !  A lady in China has lived her life without cerebellum and she had nearly normal life.

It is misleading. Plastic properties brain large. But the defects of its departments occur in situations that require the regulatory role of the brain. In other situations, the body of work by autonomic regulation and control functions of the spinal cord. Therefore it is necessary to make the data in the analysis of the case with a defect of the cerebellum.

Thank you for an excellent question and series of responses.  I have learned a lot. 

I have approached consciousness and cognitive function from a brainstem-first perspective.  Similar to the aforementioned cerebellar hypoplasia, Merker (2006) reminds us that cortex is also not necessary for consciousness and limited cognitive development.  Anencephalic children, born without cerebral cortices, can live for many years to enjoy a rich social and emotional life, and though discrinatory cognitive functions are severely reduced, they are nonetheless conscious agents who can learn.  Winn (2012) points out from mouse experiments that brainstem is also capable of associative learning. 

Further, ultraound evidence indicates young foetuses still without developed cerebral cortices, but intact brainstems and skeletomusculature (I assume also cerebellum), can perform complex, goal-directed sensorimotor tasks that require anticipation and serial organisation of a number of sensorimotor acts. 

Thus, it appears brainstem is the primarily source of intentional action, that is, the conscious acts that generate learning (Delafield-Butt & Gangopadhyay, 2013).  Panksepp calls the brainstem the seat of the core SELF, and delineates primary from secondary and tertiary consciousness (e.g Panksepp, 2011).  From an embodied, action-oriented perspective, which agrees with much of Koziol's informative comments above, brainstem is the primary generator of conscious action, informed by experience that I now understand to be stored and mediated by both cortex and cerebellum. 

My point is, it appears brainstem provides the active, generative pivot on which knowledge from cortex and cerebellum are balanced and put into use in the agency of an individual.  They are secondary appendages to the primary 'head ganglion' (brainstem) of the nervous system. 

Dear Jonathan! Thank you raised the issue of the role of the brain stem in the central nervous system. We are now well aware of the role of the reticular formation of the brain control different functions. This kind of power station, which block off the work of all other departments of the brain and spinal cord. But we must not forget that the cognitive functions are not possible without the cerebral cortex. Alzheimer's disease demonstrates this axiom.

Automation is the function of cerebellum.  Hallmark of automatic behaviors:

1.  Decreased value of reinforcers.

2.  Immunity to distraction

3.  Decreased use of attention systems

Information:

Cerebellum exchanges information from neocortex by independent closed loops.  Projections from neocortex go to cerebellum via pontine nuclei and return back to neocortex via thalamus.

Can this explain the self-stimulatory behaviors in autism have problems in information exchange in return loop i.e., cerebellum via thalamus to neocortex.

Self stimulatory behaviors have all the three qualities above mentioned.

When we are talking about the cognitive functions of the cerebellum, we must remember the role of the cerebellum in the organization of motor behavior. Also control the cerebellum of autonomic functions. Finally, the participation of the cerebellum in learning especially for food, auditory and visual stimuli.

I found some funny poems about cerebellum. Please, evaluate one of them by Ismael Rodriguez

Fearlessly ripping through

My own cerebellum

Grasping at the last remnants

Of my sanity

Diving head first

Into a sea of unreality

Fragmented voices

Still rage in my head

Like venomous serpents

Injecting their poison into my brain

I’m trapped in my thoughts

With no way out

Destinies remorse

She cries for me

But the only one who can free me

Looks back at me through the looking glass

I suppose Ismael Rodriguez works on Electrocerebellograph !

I find it really tough to understand this . .. however, what I find is that the poet is desperately trying to find the functions of cerebellum but his knowledge is stopping him (sometimes we cannot think beyond what we are taught)  There are too many contradictions and infinite possibilities and the one whom he seeks help is the one who needs help.

OR, PERHAPS THE ONE WHO SEEKS HELP IS THE WISE PERSON WHO KNOWS OF HIS/HER LIMITATIONS, DEFINING THEMSELVES WELL? BETTER TO KNOW WHAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW, THEN SHUT DOWN OTHER POSSIBILITIES? SO, I HAVE A QUESTION OUT THERE: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY STUDIES OF EEG CEREBELLAR ACTIVITY DURING SLEEP, AND PARTICULARLY DURING REM?

I found this one 

MANY THANKS!

http://www.neurology.org/content/81/16/1378.abstract

Deletions in GRID2 lead to a recessive syndrome of cerebellar ataxia and tonic upgaze in humans

Authors:

L. Benjamin Hills, BS, Amira Masri, MD, Kotaro Konno, PhD, Wataru Kakegawa, PhD, Anh-Thu N. Lam, BS, Elizabeth Lim-Melia, MD, Nandini Chandy, MS, CGC, R. Sean Hill, PhD, Jennifer N. Partlow, MS, CGC, Muna Al-Saffar, MBChB, MSc, CCGC, Ramzi Nasir, MD, MPH, Joan M. Stoler, MD, A. James Barkovich, MD, Masahiko Watanabe, MD, PhD, Michisuke Yuzaki, MD, PhD and Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, MD, MMSc

Objective: To identify the genetic cause of a syndrome causing cerebellar ataxia and eye movement abnormalities.

Methods: We identified 2 families with cerebellar ataxia, eye movement abnormalities, and global developmental delay. We performed genetic analyses including single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping, linkage analysis, array comparative genomic hybridization, quantitative PCR, and Sanger sequencing. We obtained eye movement recordings of mutant mice deficient for the ortholog of the identified candidate gene, and performed immunohistochemistry using human and mouse brain specimens.

Results: All affected individuals had ataxia, eye movement abnormalities, most notably tonic upgaze, and delayed speech and cognitive development. Homozygosity mapping identified the disease locus on chromosome 4q. Within this region, a homozygous deletion of GRID2 exon 4 in the index family and compound heterozygous deletions involving GRID2 exon 2 in the second family were identified. Grid2-deficient mice showed larger spontaneous and random eye movements compared to wild-type mice. In developing mouse and human cerebella, GRID2 localized to the Purkinje cell dendritic spines. Brain MRI in 2 affected children showed progressive cerebellar atrophy, which was more severe than that of Grid2-deficient mice.

Conclusions: Biallelic deletions of GRID2 lead to a syndrome of cerebellar ataxia and tonic upgaze in humans. The phenotypic resemblance and similarity in protein expression pattern between humans and mice suggest a conserved role for GRID2 in the synapse organization between parallel fibers and Purkinje cells. However, the progressive and severe cerebellar atrophy seen in the affected individuals could indicate an evolutionarily unique role for GRID2 in the human cerebellum.

May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser are nobel prize winner for their pioneering work on GPS in brain.  However, this area was worked before and Lateral Geniculate Nucleas (LGN) in thalamus and optical pathway has grid cells, position cells to give knowledge on where we are in space.  

This means that copies or mirroring circuits are there within brain and decision making is done if majority of circuits give vote of confidence after independent evaluation of the external environment ?