For reasons I have never understood, some students of the cerebellum have been unwilling to accept the now overwhelming evidence that the cerebellum exhibits lasting synaptic plasticity and plays an essential role in some forms of learning and memory. With a few exceptions (e.g., target article by SIMPSON et al.) this is no longer the case, as is clear in the excellent target articles on cerebellar LTD and the excellent target review by HOUK et al. [CRÉPEL et al.; HOUR et (...) al.; KANO; LINDEN; SIMPSON et al.; SMITH; VINCENT]. (shrink)
The cerebellum has been hypothesized to play a role in a variety of movement timing tasks that involve the processing of temporal information on a variety of timescales. Braitenberg, Heck & Sultan propose a new theory of cerebellar function that is able to account for movement timing on the order of a couple of hundred milliseconds. However, this theory does not account for the rôle the cerebellum plays in the acquisition and retention of adaptively timed discrete movements that are on (...) the order of 200 to 1000 milliseconds, and therefore does not account for the entire temporal range of cerebellar dependent processing. (shrink)
Shors & Matzel somewhat lightly dismiss the evidence that a process like LTP may underlie the learning-induced increase in neuronal activity in the hippocampus in eyeblink conditioning. I provide some 12 lines of evidence supporting this hypothesis and the further hypothesis that this learning-induced LTP-like hippocampal plasticity can play a critical role in certain aspects of learned behavior.