English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent Editorial, De Schutter commented on our recent study on the roles of a cortico-cerebellar loop in motor planning in mice (De Schutter 2019, Neuroinformatics, 17, 181-183, Gao et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 113-116). Two issues were raised. First, De Schutter questions the involvement of the fastigial nucleus in motor planning, rather than the dentate nucleus, given previous anatomical studies in non-human primates. Second, De Schutter suggests that our study design did not delineate different components of the behavior and the fastigial nucleus might play roles in sensory discrimination rather than motor planning. These comments are based on anatomical studies in other species and homology-based arguments and ignore key anatomical data and neurophysiological experiments from our study. Here we outline our interpretation of existing data and point out gaps in knowledge where future studies are needed.

Response to “Fallacies of Mice Experiments”