↓ Skip to main content

Error detection and representation in the olivo-cerebellar system

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
219 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Error detection and representation in the olivo-cerebellar system
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2013.00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masao Ito

Abstract

Complex spikes generated in a cerebellar Purkinje cell via a climbing fiber have been assumed to encode errors in the performance of neuronal circuits involving Purkinje cells. To reexamine this notion in this review, I analyzed structures of motor control systems involving the cerebellum. A dichotomy was found between the two types of error: sensory and motor errors play roles in the feedforward and feedback control conditions, respectively. To substantiate this dichotomy, here in this article I reviewed recent data on neuronal connections and signal contents of climbing fibers in the vestibuloocular reflex (VOR), optokinetic eye movement response, saccade, hand reaching, cursor tracking, as well as some other cases of motor control. In our studies, various sources of sensory and motor errors were located in the neuronal pathways leading to the inferior olive. We noted that during the course of evolution, control system structures involving the cerebellum changed rather radically from the prototype seen in the flocculonodular lobe and vermis to that applicable to the cerebellar hemisphere. Nevertheless, the dichotomy between sensory and motor errors is maintained.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 225 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 24%
Researcher 48 20%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 12 5%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 34 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 69 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 18%
Psychology 21 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 8%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 41 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2022.
All research outputs
#14,785,161
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#582
of 1,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,506
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#58
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.