1 / 16

Inhibitory Cerebello-Olivary Projections and Blocking Effect in Classical Conditioning

Inhibitory Cerebello-Olivary Projections and Blocking Effect in Classical Conditioning. J J Kim, D J Krupa, R F Thompson Science, vol. 279, 570-573 (1998). Test A alone Normal CR Test B alone Very little or no CR. CS A. CR. CS B. Blocking: Observed data. CS A. UR (A-US). US.

tacey
Télécharger la présentation

Inhibitory Cerebello-Olivary Projections and Blocking Effect in Classical Conditioning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inhibitory Cerebello-Olivary Projections and Blocking Effect in Classical Conditioning J J Kim, D J Krupa, R F Thompson Science, vol. 279, 570-573 (1998)

  2. Test A alone • Normal CR • Test B alone • Very little or no CR CS A CR CS B Blocking: Observed data CS A UR (A-US) US • First CS (A) paired with US • A-US • First CS (A) and second CS (B) paired with US • Compound conditioning • AB-US CS A CS B UR (AB-US) US

  3. Blocking: Interpretation • If US is fully predicted by A (A-US), then adding B does not provide new information • Save on unnecessary computation • Weaker pre-conditioning of A-US causes a stronger effect of B-US • Inverse proportionality of A-US and B-US CS A CR CS A CS B CR Redundant CS B

  4. Eyeblink Conditioning NMR = nictitating membrane response Eyelid movement measurement device Speaker (CS A) Light (CS B) Eyelid closes (UR, CR) Thread to eyelid Air nozzle (US)

  5. Postulated eyeblink conditioning circuit CS-US association (Purkinje cells in HVI spike when CR is learned) Interpositus nucleus Blocking inhibition GABA antagonists (eg. Picrotoxin [PTX]) prevent blocking The question: Is this circuit correct?

  6. Experiment 1: Procedure • Standard classical conditioning • Tone CS • Airpuff US • Eye closing UR becomes CR during training • 54 Purkinje cells recorded during conditioning • 31 in lobule HVI <--- most likely activity site for eyeblink conditioning • 12 in anterior lobe HV, 6 in HVIIA, 5 in paramedian lobule

  7. Experiment 1: Eyelid & Cell Responses CR UR CS-US trials No purkinje cell response Purkinje cell spikes UR UR US only trials Naïve animals (5 cells) Trained animals (11 cells)

  8. Experiment 1:Control, Conclusions, Comments • Control case: strictly unpaired tone and airpuff trials • 20 out of 45 cells responded to the airpuff with complex spikes • Indicates that tone and airpuff must be paired for spike suppression • Conclusion: as eyeblink conditioning occurs the inferior olive’s ability to convey US information to the cerebellum is suppressed • This is not really shown - just the involvement of Purkinje cells • Comments • UR amplitude in response to US-only trials is higher for trained animals: why?

  9. UR US only Trained eyelid response to picrotoxin (PTX) Purkinje cell spikes • 3 cells recorded • Well-trained rabbits • how many? • PTX injected into inferior olive CS + US before PTX infusion CR No purkinje cell spikes CS + US after PTX infusion CR Purkinje cell spikes

  10. Phase I: Tone-airpuff conditioning • 7 sessions, 1 per day (10 blocks x 10 trials) CS A UR (A-US) US • Phase II: Tone-light-airpuff conditioning • Simultaneously introduce one of two fluids: • GABA antagonist: picrotoxin (PTX) • Placebo: artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) • 5 sessions, 1 per day (10 blocks x 10 trials) CS A CS B UR (AB-US) US • Light-airpuff test • Light CS + airpuff US testing (B-US) • 5 sessions, 1 per day (10 blocks x 10 trials) CS B ??? US Experiment 2: Procedure • Preparation • Rabbits implanted with guide cannulae above contralateral inferior olive

  11. Experiment 2: Test groups • Main group • ACSF: 6 rabbits • PTX: 12 rabbits • Control group • 5 rabbits Phase I Phase II Light-airpuff Phase II Light-airpuff

  12. Normal acquisition ACSF/PTX maintain response Experiment 2: Results Phase I Tone CS Phase II Tone + light CS Light-airpuff test Light CS US-only Partial response Control case acquisition Blocking • Control case similar to PTX • ACSF shows blocking, then re-learning • PTX does not affect UR amplitude

  13. Is the circuit correct? • Experiment 1 --> something stops Purkinje cell spiking • Purkinje cell spiking correlated with CR • PTX infusion in inferior olive restores Purkinje cell spiking • Inferior olive and GABA are involved • Experiment 2 --> PTX infusion prevents blocking • PTX seems to prevent GABA inhibition of inferior olive Interpositus nucleus Blocking inhibition

  14. Specific Comments • Mechanism for inverse relationship between strength of A-US and B-US is not explained • Slow acquisition during Experiment 2 light-airpuff test (compared to Phase I) not explained • Decrease of blocking over time is not explained • Due to simultaneous extinction of A-US and acquisition of B-US?

  15. The End

  16. Cerebellar Cortex Parallel fibres Molecular layer Stellate cell Basket cell Purkinje cell layer Granule-cell layer Golgi cell Purkinje cell Granule cell Mossy fibre Climbing fibre Purkinje cell axon (Ghez & Tach, 2000)

More Related