How to link the specificity of cerebellar anatomy to motor learning?

Sultan, F; Heck, D; Bekkering, H

doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081863

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

How to link the specificity of cerebellar anatomy to motor learning?

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons241998

Heck, D
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Former Department Structure and Function of Natural Nerve-Net , Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/how-to-link-the-specificity-of-cerebellar-anatomy-to-motor-learning/E06C1C9A7B485DE4F40FC023FDCBD482
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Sultan, F., Heck, D., & Bekkering, H. (1996). How to link the specificity of cerebellar anatomy to motor learning? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(Special Issue 3), 474. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081863.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-EBF0-4

Abstract

The target article by Thach outlines the Brindley-Marr-Albus-Gilbert (BMAG) learning theory and extends its validity to cognitive processes. We
provide here an alternative explanation for the positron emission tomography (PET) data cited by Thach in support of the BMAG model. We also comment on the
anatomical and physiological basis of the BMAG model and Houk's adjustable pattern generator (APG), both models being based on similar assumptions.