Abstract
The discovery of single-trial learning effects, where the presence or absence (or the number) of climbing fiber inputs produces measureable changes in Purkinje cell response and in behavior, represents a major breakthrough in cerebellar learning. Among other things, these observations provide strong links between climbing fiber-mediated plasticity and cerebellar learning. They also demonstrate that cerebellar learning is stochastic, with each instantiation of a movement producing a small increment or decrement in gain. The sum of the small changes give rise to the macroscopic properties of cerebellar learning. We used a relatively large data set from another example of cerebellar-dependent learning, classical conditioning of eyelid responses, to attempt a behavioral replication and extension of single-trial learning effects. As a normal part of training, stimulus-alone trials provide instances where the climbing fiber response would be omitted, similar to non-climbing-fiber trials (gain down) during smooth pursuit training. The consequences of the stimulus-alone trial on the amplitude and timing of the conditioned response on the following paired trials were examined. We find that the amplitude of the conditioned response during the trial after a stimulus-alone trial (no climbing fiber input) was measurably smaller than the amplitude on the previous trials, and this single-trial effect on amplitude is larger for longer interstimulus intervals. The magnitude of the single-trial effect parallels the rate of extinction at different interstimulus intervals supporting the previously observed link between single-trial effects and learning.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Medina JF, Lisberger SG. Links from complex spikes to local plasticity and motor learning in the cerebellum of awake-behaving monkeys. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:1185–92.
Yang Y, Lisberger SG. Purkinje-cell plasticity and cerebellar motor learning are graded by complex-spike duration. Nature. 2014;510:529–32.
Mauk MD, Steinmtez JE, Thompson RF. Classical conditioning using stimulation of the inferior olive as the unconditioned stimulus. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1986;83:5349–53.
Steinmetz JE, Lavond DG, Thompson RF. Classical conditioning in rabbits using oointine nucleus stimulation as a conditioned stimulus and inferior olive stimulation as a n unconditioned stimulus. Synapse. 1989;3:225–33.
McCormick DA, Thompson RF. Neuronal responses of the rabbit cerebellum during acquisition and performance of a classically conditioned nictitating membrane-eyelid response. J Neurosci. 1984;4:2811–22.
Gould TJ, Steinmetz JE. Changes in rabbit cerebellar cortical and interpositus nucleus activity during acquisition, extinction, and backward classical eyelid conditioning. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 1996;65:17–34.
Halverson HE, Lee I, Freeman JH. Associative plasticity in the medial auditory thalamus and cerebellar interpositus nucleus during eyeblink conditioning. J Neurosci. 2010;30:8787–96.
Svensson P, Ivarsson M, Hesslow G. Effect of varying the intensity and train frequency of forelimb and cerebellar mossy fiber conditioned stimuli on the latency of conditioned eye-blink responses in decerebrate ferrets. Learn Mem. 1997;4:105–15.
Kalmbach BE, Ohyama T, Mauk MD. Temporal patterns of inputs to cerebellum necessary and sufficient for trace eyelid conditioning. J Neurophysiol. 2010;104:627–40.
Schneiderman N, Fuentes I, Gormezano I. Acquisition and extinction of the classically conditioned eyelid response in the albino rabbit. Science. 1962;136:650–2.
Sears LL, Steinmetz JE. Dorsal accessory inferior olive activity diminishes during acquisition of the rabbit classically conditioned eyelid response. Brain Res. 1991;545:114–22.
Hesslow G, Ivarsson M. Inhibition of the inferior olive during conditioned responses in the decerebrate ferret. Exp Brain Res. 1996;110:36–46.
Medina JF, Nores WL, Mauk MD. Inhibition of climbing fibres is a signal for the extinction of conditioned eyelid responses. Nature. 2002;416:330–3.
Ryan SB, Detwiler KL, Holland KH, Hord MA, Bracha V. A long-range, wide field-of-view infrared eyeblink detector. J Neurosci Methods. 2006;15:74–82.
Kreider JC, Mauk MD. Eyelid conditioning to a target amplitude: adding how much to whether and when. J Neurosci. 2010;30:14145–52.
Ohyama T, Voicu H, Kalmbach B, Mauk MD. A decrementing form of plasticity apparent in cerebellar learning. J Neurosci. 2010;30:16993–7003.
Mauk MD, Donegan NH. A model of Pavlovian eyelid conditioning based on the synaptic organization of the cerebellum. Learn Mem. 1997;4:130–58.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by NIH grants MH74006 and MH46904.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khilkevich, A., Halverson, H.E., Canton-Josh, J.E. et al. Links Between Single-Trial Changes and Learning Rate in Eyelid Conditioning. Cerebellum 15, 112–121 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0690-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-015-0690-8