Multiple components in direction learning in smooth pursuit eye movements of monkeys

Adaptive control of movement deceleration during saccades

As you read this text, your eyes make saccades that guide your fovea from one word to the next. Accuracy of these movements require the brain to monitor and learn from visual errors. A current model suggests that learning is supported by two different adaptive processes, one fast (high error sensitivity, low retention), and the other slow (low error sensitivity, high retention). Here, we searched for signatures of these hypothesized processes and found that following experience of a visual error, there was an adaptive change in the motor commands of the subsequent saccade. Surprisingly, this adaptation was not uniformly expressed throughout the movement. Rather, after experience of a single error, the adaptive response in the subsequent trial was limited to the deceleration period. After repeated exposure to the same error, the acceleration period commands also adapted, and exhibited resistance to forgetting during set-breaks. In contrast, the deceleration period commands adapted more rapidly, but suffered from poor retention during these same breaks. State-space models suggested that acceleration and deceleration periods were supported by a shared adaptive state which re-aimed the saccade, as well as two separate processes which resembled a two-state model: one that learned slowly and contributed primarily via acceleration period commands, and another that learned rapidly but contributed primarily via deceleration period commands.

Retinal error signals and fluctuations in eye velocity influence oculomotor behavior in subsequent trials

The oculomotor system makes use of an integration of previous stimulus velocities (the prior) and current sensory inputs to adjust initial eye speeds. The present study extended this research by investigating the roles of different retinal or extra-retinal signals for this process. To test for this, participants viewed movement sequences that all ended with the same test trial. Earlier in the sequence, the prior was manipulated by presenting targets that either had different velocities, different starting positions, or target movements designed to elicit differential oculomotor behavior (tracked with or without additional corrective saccades). Additionally, these prior targets could vary in terms of contrast to manipulate reliability. When the velocity of prior trials differed from test trials, the reliability-weighted integration of prior information was replicated. When the prior trials differed in starting position, significant effects on subsequent oculomotor behavior were only observed for the reliable target. Although there were also differences in eye velocity across the different manipulations, they could not explain the observed reliability-weighted integration. When comparing the same physical prior trials but tracked with additional corrective saccades, the eye velocity in the test trial also differed systematically (slower for forward saccades, and faster for backward saccades). The direction of the observed effect contradicts the expectations based on perceived speed and eye velocity, but can be predicted by a combination of retinal velocity and position error signals. Together, these results suggest that general fluctuations in eye velocity as well as retinal error signals are related to oculomotor behavior in subsequent trials.

Passive Motor Learning: Oculomotor Adaptation in the Absence of Behavioral Errors

Motor adaptation is commonly thought to be a trial-and-error process in which the accuracy of movement improves with repetition of behavior. We challenged this view by testing whether erroneous movements are necessary for motor adaptation. In the eye movement system, the association between movements and errors can be disentangled, since errors in the predicted stimulus trajectory can be perceived even without movements. We modified a smooth pursuit eye movement adaptation paradigm in which monkeys learn to make an eye movement that predicts an upcoming change in target direction. We trained the monkeys to fixate on a target while covertly, an additional target initially moved in one direction and then changed direction after 250 ms. The monkeys showed a learned response to infrequent probe trials in which they were instructed to follow the moving target. Additional experiments confirmed that probing learning or residual eye movements during fixation did not drive learning. These results show that motor adaptation can be elicited in the absence of movement and provide an animal model for studying the implementation of passive motor learning. Current models assume that the interaction between movement and error signals underlies adaptive motor learning. Our results point to other mechanisms that may drive learning in the absence of movement.

The Rules of Cerebellar Learning: Around the Ito Hypothesis

As a tribute to Masao Ito, we propose a model of cerebellar learning that incorporates and extends his original model. We suggest four principles that align well with conclusions from multiple cerebellar learning systems. (1) Climbing fiber inputs to the cerebellum drive early, fast, poorly-retained learning in the parallel fiber to Purkinje cell synapse. (2) Learned Purkinje cell outputs drive late, slow, well-retained learning in non-Purkinje cell inputs to neurons in the cerebellar nucleus, transferring learning from the cortex to the nucleus. (3) Recurrent feedback from Purkinje cells to the inferior olive, through interneurons in the cerebellar nucleus, limits the magnitude of fast, early learning in the cerebellar cortex. (4) Functionally different inputs are subjected to plasticity in the cerebellar cortex versus the cerebellar nucleus. A computational neural circuit model that is based on these principles mimics a large amount of neural and behavioral data obtained from the smooth pursuit eye movements of monkeys.

Synergistic excitability plasticity in cerebellar functioning

The cerebellum, a universal processor for sensory acquisition and internal models, and its association with synaptic and nonsynaptic plasticity have been envisioned as the biological correlates of learning, perception, and even thought. Indeed, the cerebellum is no longer considered merely as the locus of motor coordination and its learning. Here, we introduce the mechanisms underlying the induction of multiple types of plasticity in cerebellar circuit and give an overview focusing on the plasticity of nonsynaptic intrinsic excitability. The discovery of long-term potentiation of synaptic responsiveness in hippocampal neurons led investigations into changes of their intrinsic excitability. This activity-dependent potentiation of neuronal excitability is distinct from that of synaptic efficacy. Systematic examination of excitability plasticity has indicated that the modulation of various types of Ca²⁺ - and voltage-dependent K⁺ channels underlies the phenomenon, which is also triggered by immune activity. Intrinsic plasticity is expressed specifically on dendrites and modifies the integrative processing and filtering effect. In Purkinje cells, modulation of the discordance of synaptic current on soma and dendrite suggested a novel type of cellular learning mechanism. This property enables a plausible synergy between synaptic efficacy and intrinsic excitability, by amplifying electrical conductivity and influencing the polarity of bidirectional synaptic plasticity. Furthermore, the induction of intrinsic plasticity in the cerebellum correlates with motor performance and cognitive processes, through functional connections from the cerebellar nuclei to neocortex and associated regions: for example, thalamus and midbrain. Taken together, recent advances in neuroscience have begun to shed light on the complex functioning of nonsynaptic excitability and the synergy.

Principles of operation of a cerebellar learning circuit

We provide behavioral evidence using monkey smooth pursuit eye movements for four principles of cerebellar learning. Using a circuit-level model of the cerebellum, we link behavioral data to learning's neural implementation. The four principles are: (1) early, fast, acquisition driven by climbing fiber inputs to the cerebellar cortex, with poor retention; (2) learned responses of Purkinje cells guide transfer of learning from the cerebellar cortex to the deep cerebellar nucleus, with excellent retention; (3) functionally different neural signals are subject to learning in the cerebellar cortex versus the deep cerebellar nuclei; and (4) negative feedback from the cerebellum to the inferior olive reduces the magnitude of the teaching signal in climbing fibers and limits learning. Our circuit-level model, based on these four principles, explains behavioral data obtained by strategically manipulating the signals responsible for acquisition and recall of direction learning in smooth pursuit eye movements across multiple timescales.

Different mechanisms for modulation of the initiation and steady-state of smooth pursuit eye movements

Smooth pursuit eye movements are used by primates to track moving objects. They are initiated by sensory estimates of target speed represented in the middle temporal (MT) area of extrastriate visual cortex and then supported by motor feedback to maintain steady-state eye speed at target speed. Here, we show that reducing the coherence in a patch of dots for a tracking target degrades the eye speed both at the initiation of pursuit and during steady-state tracking, when eye speed reaches an asymptote well below target speed. The deficits are quantitatively different between the motor-supported steady-state of pursuit and the sensory-driven initiation of pursuit, suggesting separate mechanisms. The deficit in visually guided pursuit initiation could not explain the deficit in steady-state tracking. Pulses of target speed during steady-state tracking revealed lower sensitivities to image motion across the retina for lower values of dot coherence. However, sensitivity was not zero, implying that visual motion should still be driving eye velocity toward target velocity. When we changed dot coherence from 100% to lower values during accurate steady-state pursuit, we observed larger eye decelerations for lower coherences, as expected if motor feedback was reduced in gain. A simple pursuit model accounts for our data based on separate modulation of the strength of visual-motor transmission and motor feedback. We suggest that reduced dot coherence allows us to observe evidence for separate modulations of the gain of visual-motor transmission during pursuit initiation and of the motor corollary discharges that comprise eye velocity memory and support steady-state tracking.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We exploit low-coherence patches of dots to control the initiation and steady state of smooth pursuit eye movements and show that these two phases of movement are modulated separately by the reliability of visual motion signals. We conclude that the neural circuit for pursuit includes separate modulation of the strength of visual-motor transmission for movement initiation and of eye velocity positive feedback to support steady-state tracking.

Predictive Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements

Smooth pursuit eye movements maintain the line of sight on smoothly moving targets. Although often studied as a response to sensory motion, pursuit anticipates changes in motion trajectories, thus reducing harmful consequences due to sensorimotor processing delays. Evidence for predictive pursuit includes (a) anticipatory smooth eye movements (ASEM) in the direction of expected future target motion that can be evoked by perceptual cues or by memory for recent motion, (b) pursuit during periods of target occlusion, and (c) improved accuracy of pursuit with self-generated or biologically realistic target motions. Predictive pursuit has been linked to neural activity in the frontal cortex and in sensory motion areas. As behavioral and neural evidence for predictive pursuit grows and statistically based models augment or replace linear systems approaches, pursuit is being regarded less as a reaction to immediate sensory motion and more as a predictive response, with retinal motion serving as one of a number of contributing cues.