It is a far more profound concept than a grandmother cell, for it is not about representation (at least not solely) but concerns the intermediate steps of neural computation. In vision, it is a legacy of Hubel and Wiesel, expanded and

elaborated by J.A. Movshon (e.g., Movshon et al., 1978a and Movshon et al., 1978b) and many others. The concept seems to be holding up to the study of decision making. No high-dimensional dynamical structures needed for assembly—at least not so far. In the next 25 years, the field will tackle problems that encompass various levels of explanation, from molecule to networks of circuits. But in selleck the end, the key mechanisms that underlie cognition are likely to be understood as computations supported by the firing rates of neurons that relate directly to relevant quantities of information, evidence, plans, and the steps along the way. Regarding decision making, we have arrived at a point where the three pillars of choice behavior—accuracy, reaction time, and confidence (Link, 1992 and Vickers, 1979)—are reconciled by a common neural mechanism. It has

taken 25 years to achieve this, and it will take another 25, at least, to achieve the degree of understanding we desire at the level of cells, circuits, and circuit-circuit interaction. It will be worth the effort. If cognition is decision making writ large, then the window on cognition mentioned in the title of this essay may one day be a portal to interventions in diseases that affect the mind. M.N.S. is supported by HHMI, NEI, and HFSP. We thank Helen Brew, Chris Fetsch, Naomi Odean, Daphna Shohamy, Luke Woloszyn, and Shushruth for helpful www.selleckchem.com/products/ch5424802.html feedback.

“
“A shift in the understanding of the cerebellum has taken place over the past 25 years. The majority of the human cerebellum is associated with cerebral networks involved in cognition, which is an astonishing finding given that, until quite recently, the cerebellum was thought to contribute primarily to the planning and execution of movements (Strick et al., 2009, Schmahmann, PAK6 2010 and Leiner, 2010). The focus on motor function arose early in the 19th century following careful observations in animal models of cerebellar damage (Ito, 1984). The cerebellum’s anatomical positioning atop the spinal cord and deficits observed in neurological patients led Charles Sherrington (1906) to refer to the cerebellum as the “head ganglion of the proprioceptive system.” Despite sporadic findings supporting a more general role of the cerebellum in nonmotor functions, often conducted by eminent neurophysiologists (Schmahmann, 1997), the overwhelming emphasis of the literature did not waiver from focus on motor control. The motor emphasis was partly driven by a peculiar feature of cerebrocerebellar circuitry that has prevented traditional anatomical techniques from discovering the cerebellum’s full organizational properties (Figure 1).