QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

HOME  |   SEARCH  |   ARCHIVE  |   SUBSCRIBE  |   CONTACT  |   HELP

The Journal of Neuroscience, January 26, 2005, 25(4):889-895; doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4534-04.2005

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Freeman, J. H. Articles by Poremba, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Freeman, J. H., Jr Articles by Poremba, A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive
Differential Effects of Cerebellar Inactivation on Eyeblink Conditioned Excitation and Inhibition

John H. Freeman, Jr, Hunter E. Halverson, and Amy Poremba

Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242

The neural mechanisms underlying excitatory and inhibitory eyeblink conditioning were compared using muscimol inactivation of the cerebellum. In experiment 1, rats were given saline or muscimol infusions into the anterior interpositus nucleus ipsilateral to the conditioned eye before each of four daily excitatory conditioning sessions. Postinfusion testing continued for four more excitatory conditioning sessions. All rats were given a final test session after muscimol infusions. The muscimol infusions inactivated the cerebellar nuclei, lateral anterior lobe, crus I, rostral crus II, and lobule HVI ipsilateral to the conditioned eye. Acquisition of excitatory conditioning was completely prevented by muscimol inactivation. In experiment 2, there were four experimental phases. Phase 1 consisted of excitatory conditioning. In phase 2, rats were given saline or muscimol infusions before conditioned inhibition training. Phase 3 consisted of continued conditioned inhibition training with no drug infusions. In phase 4, all rats received a retardation test in which the inhibitory stimulus was paired with the unconditioned stimulus. Muscimol infusions blocked the expression of conditioned responses during phase 2. However, robust conditioned inhibition was evident in phases 3 and 4. The findings indicate that conditioned excitation and inhibition depend on different mechanisms.

Key words: cerebellum; interpositus; learning; conditioning; eyeblink; muscimol

---

Received June 11, 2004; revised November 4, 2004; accepted December 7, 2004.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. M. Campolattaro and J. H. Freeman Eyeblink conditioning in 12-day-old rats using pontine stimulation as the conditioned stimulus PNAS, June 10, 2008; 105(23): 8120 - 8123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. CAMPOLATTARO, K. M. SCHNITKER, and J. H. FREEMAN Changes in inhibition during differential eyeblink conditioning with increased training Learn Behav, May 1, 2008; 36(2): 159 - 165. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Miyasaka, H. Knaut, and Y. Yoshihara Cxcl12/Cxcr4 chemokine signaling is required for placode assembly and sensory axon pathfinding in the zebrafish olfactory system Development, July 1, 2007; 134(13): 2459 - 2468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Freeman Jr., C. A. Rabinak, and M. M. Campolattaro Pontine stimulation overcomes developmental limitations in the neural mechanisms of eyeblink conditioning Learn. Mem., May 1, 2005; 12(3): 255 - 259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home  |   Search  |   Archive  |   Subscribe  |   Contact  |   Help