Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News and Commentary
  • Published:

Fear and the cerebellum

Molecular Psychiatry volume 8, pages 461–462 (2003)Cite this article

The very long-term consolidation intervals shown by Sacchetti et al1 following inactivation of the cerebellum with tetrodotoxin (TTX) are quite remarkable. The intervals are consistent with intervals of up to 8 days previously reported by this group following inactivation of perirhinal cortex with TTX.2 The effects appear experimentally sound and robust. The authors persuade us that the outcomes are the result of ‘the amnesic effect of the functional inactivation performed during consolidation.’ The case is well made for the importance of the single-session procedure, the advantage of the acute stereotaxic procedure rather than the chronic cannulation procedure, and the freedom of their procedure from effects due to interference with motor or sensory processes. This latter point seems particularly critical when dealing with the cerebellum.

Setting aside for the moment what the present data tell us about the cerebellum as a locus for these consolidation effects, the real puzzle is what kind of mechanism can account for such a long time course for consolidation. I know of no evidence for a process that could remain in an active, labile state for up to 8 days, and the authors offer no suggestions. They are equally silent in their review of this literature,3 although they do suggest that injections of TTX disrupt consolidation at longer post-training intervals than do injections of a local anesthetic, like lidocaine, because TTX produces a longer duration inactivation. So whatever the enduring mechanism that leads to consolidation, it must not only be interrupted, but must be interrupted for some critical period of time. The authors offer no insights into a consolidation mechanism that would have such characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Sacchetti B et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99: 8406–8411.

  2. Sacchetti B et al. J Neurosci 1999; 19: 9570–9578.

  3. Ambrogi Lorenzini C et al. Neurobiol Learning Memory 1999; 71: 1–18.

  4. Hitchcock J, Davis M . Behav Neurosci 1986; 100: 11–22.

  5. Melia KR, Falls WA, Davis M . Brain Res 1992; 584: 141–148.

  6. Falls WA et al. J Neurosci 1992; 12: 854–863.

  7. Supple Jr WF et al. Physiol Behav 1988; 42: 145–153.

  8. Supple Jr WF, Leaton RN . Behav Neurosci 1990; 104: 934–947.

  9. Lavond DG et al. Brain Res 1984; 305: 323–330.

  10. Ito M . The Cerebellum and Neural Control. Raven Press: New York, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychological & Brain Sciences, 6207 Moore Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, 03755, NH, USA

    R Leaton

Authors
  1. R Leaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R Leaton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leaton, R. Fear and the cerebellum. Mol Psychiatry 8, 461–462 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001286

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001286

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links