SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Basal Ganglia Paths Support Acute vs. Learned Execution, Not Movement vs. Stopping

· 2018-08-08

DOI: 10.20944/preprints201808.0157.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The basal ganglia (BG) are a central component of the brain, crucial to the initiation, execution and learning of adaptive actions. The BG are the major site of the action of dopamine. An important aspect of the BG architecture is the existence of two paths, direct and indirect, having different projection targets and dopamine receptor expression. To understand the BG, dopamine, and related disorders, it is imperative to understand the two paths. The standard account used in neuroscience research for decades posits that the direct path supports movements, while the indirect path suppresses unselected or completed movements. This account is contradicted by converging evidence. Here, we explain why the arguments supporting the standard account are flawed, and present a new account, in which the role of the indirect path is completely opposite: to support learned execution. During acute events, ongoing execution is stopped, and the direct path allows coarse responses. These are refined by competition, and the resulting focused response is executed and learned by the indirect path, assisted by cholinergic interneurons. The new account allows a novel understanding of the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and of its treatment by deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.