Learning in the cerebellum -- a part of the vertebrate brain located at the back of the skull that directs and regulates movements -- is guided through a process of trial and error. For example, when learning to shoot a basketball, people usually miss many times before getting one shot through the hoop. As the arm moves, the cerebellum makes predictions about the consequences of the action. When the prediction does not match reality -- that is, the ball misses the hoop -- the cerebellum receives feedback from the eyes and the arm to learn from the error, fine-tuning factors such as aim, force and release to make a basket. This trial-to-trial learning from error produces gradual improvements in performance.
However, research efforts have fallen short of decoding how the cells in the cerebellum make predictions and how they learn from their mistakes, according to the senior author.
To decode the signal, the team began with the principal neurons in the cerebellum, called Purkinje cells. Purkinje cells communicate through two types of electrical signals: simple spikes, which reflect information regarding the prediction that the cells are making, and complex spikes, which reflect information that is sent back to the Purkinje cells, informing them of the error in their prediction.
"You can think of the simple spikes as the 'student' that makes a prediction and the complex spikes as the 'teacher' that provides feedback," says the senior author.
In a past study, the research team found that the Purkinje cells organize into small groups of about 50 and together make predictions, sending their output of all the members simultaneously. The neurons that make up these groups share a critical feature: They all receive the same error signal. Therefore, the fundamental computational unit in the cerebellum was not a single Purkinje cell, but a small group that learns together from a common mistake. While earlier work had tried to decipher the simple spikes of individual Purkinje cells, these results suggested that the key to understanding the cerebellum was to organize the Purkinje cells into groups and then count the sum total of simple spikes being produced by the members of the group. By doing so, the team discovered that the group generated simple spikes that precisely predicted the motion of a monkey's eyes as it gazed around a screen.
Having found a way to decipher the language with which the cerebellum made predictions, the next step was to understand how the cerebellum learns from its prediction errors. To investigate this question, the researchers measured cerebellar activity in seven rhesus monkeys fitted with electrodes and trained them to follow a small target with their eyes. The researchers replicated a "mistake" by moving the target more quickly than the monkeys could accurately predict, causing them to frequently miss the target.
They found that simple spikes measured through the electrodes correlated with the intensity of movement -- more simple spikes meant that the monkeys needed to move their eyes more quickly to catch the target. According to the researchers, the Purkinje cells produced an average of 50-70 spikes per second.
The researchers found that the complex spikes did not convey error in the same manner. Regardless of how far off the monkeys' eyes were from the target, the number of complex spikes produced in the cerebellum stayed the same. Instead, they found that the direction of the error affected the probability of generating a complex spike, whereas the magnitude of the error affected the timing of the complex spike. Therefore, the language of prediction was in rate of simple spikes, whereas the language of prediction error was in timing of the complex spike.
For example, the team found that when the monkeys missed the target by 3 degrees of distance, a complex spike appeared after 100 milliseconds, and if the monkeys missed by 8 degrees, a complex spike appeared in 120 milliseconds.
"In short, the 'language' of the teacher is time, while the language of the student is rate," says the senior author, and explains that current AI machines in the world rely on the same basic structure and are composed of many layers of neuronlike units that together make predictions. Layers of such units make calculations, passing results to the next layer until the process reaches the "output" layer that makes the final prediction. When an AI machine's prediction is wrong, it experiences an error and, with current AI networks, sends that error back to all units.
"These machines are inspired by the way biological networks learn, but what is interesting is that the architecture of the cerebellum is somewhat different than what has been designed in artificial systems," says the senior author. Instead of all the cells receiving complex spikes after the error, in the cerebellum the Purkinje cells organize into small groups, each specializing in responding to specific errors. The Purkinje cells appear to be organized based on a preference for error in only a small part of the task space.
One of the advantages of the cerebellum's architecture, says the senior author, is that it protects memories. When you experience an error to the right, it causes learning by engaging Purkinje cells that register that error. If on the next trial you experience an error to the left, the new error engages a new group of Purkinje cells. As a result, new errors do not erase the memory, but result in two independent memories.
Damage to the cerebellum can profoundly impair the ability to make movements, resulting in symptoms that together are called ataxia. A puzzle that has remained unsolved is how the cerebellum translates its predictions into motor commands that guide movements.
This final result may make it possible to refine diagnosis of cerebellar disease by measuring learning from error and allow scientists to connect motor learning impairment with the loss of specific groups of Purkinje cells.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/decoding_the_brains_learning_machine
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-018-0136-y
Latest News
Maternal obesity may promot…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
The neuronal basis of opioi…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Circadian clock can be leve…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Connecting genetic risk for…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Tumor infiltration of immun…
By newseditor
Posted 28 May
Other Top Stories
A new mechanism for bacterial division
Read more
Gut bacteria can help to predict how the body will respond to fatty…
Read more
Simple blood test predicts anemia risk after malaria treatment
Read more
Antibiotics taken late in pregnancy can increase risk for inflammat…
Read more
Storing and replaying a movie encoded in bacterial genome
Read more
Protocols
Accessible high-speed image…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
SEMORE: SEgmentation and MO…
By newseditor
Posted 26 May
Spatially resolved lipidomi…
By newseditor
Posted 24 May
Efficient expansion and CRI…
By newseditor
Posted 21 May
Massively parallel in vivo…
By newseditor
Posted 20 May
Publications
Maternal obesity increases…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Why cells need iron: a comp…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Distinct μ-opioid ensembles…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Axonal endoplasmic reticulu…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
I Am Curious About Cannabis…
By newseditor
Posted 30 May
Presentations
Hydrogels in Drug Delivery
By newseditor
Posted 12 Apr
Lipids
By newseditor
Posted 31 Dec
Cell biology of carbohydrat…
By newseditor
Posted 29 Nov
RNA interference (RNAi)
By newseditor
Posted 23 Oct
RNA structure and functions
By newseditor
Posted 19 Oct
Posters
A chemical biology/modular…
By newseditor
Posted 22 Aug
Single-molecule covalent ma…
By newseditor
Posted 04 Jul
ASCO-2020-HEALTH SERVICES R…
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar
ASCO-2020-HEAD AND NECK CANCER
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar
ASCO-2020-GENITOURINARY CAN…
By newseditor
Posted 23 Mar