From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Cerebellum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 16, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Version 0.5      (Rated FA-Class)
Peer review This Natsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Nothing on Eyelid conditioning and the work of Dick Thompson?[edit]

It seems funny that there is nothing on the work of Dick Thompson on the role of the cerebellum in learning and memory. His research was some of the pioneering work on the biological substrates of learning and memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


The edits by made today were mine. I forgot to log in. If there's anything wrong, you know who to blame now. Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Since the majority of this article is focused on the human cerebellum and biology, I feel we should indicate this somehow. Should each section start with the phrase, "In humans..." or something similar, or should we simply put some sort of disclaimer at the beginning of the article? It's implied that this is mainly about human physiology, but not every section applies solely to humans, so I feel we should directly state it somewhere. Ideas? semiconscious (talk · home) 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey there. I think that most things in here apply to cerebella of other species, except maybe the details of the gross anatomy. But the function, microcircuitry, major divisions, inputs and outputs and even function are all applicable to other species. Maybe we can indicate "in humans" where appropriate and, if we're up for it, compare and contrast how it differs from other species. Fortunately the cerebellum is one of the most conserved regions, so we won't need to do this too often. Nrets 16:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree... for example, many of the papers cited at the bottom of the article are about mice, rabbits, and monkeys. Since cerebella have some features in common from fish to human, it would be great to indicate when a feature is conserved or when it is species-specific. Cyberied 16:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Percent cerebellum by total brain volume[edit]

A new user added a comment saying that the granule cells compose approximately 70% of the total cells in the CNS. We wrote earlier that the cerebellum in its entirety constitutes approximately 50% of the cells in the brain. Obviously there is a contradiction here. We need someone to bring in citations. I'll try and dig up mine... Semiconscious 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the granule cell article, they account for nearly half of the neurons in the central nervous system. --WS 19:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, yes. But I wrote that article, so it's a bit biased! Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you can find both estimates in the literature, although 70% seems high. It might also vary from species to species. Nrets 20:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • True, but if this person has a great new reference, then I'd be willing to accept that over the 50% comment any day (though 70% seems way too high to me, too). Semiconscious 23:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Problem is, is that it is an anonymous user who's only made that one edit, so we can't ask him! Nrets 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I found a source and made a slight change in the text - before looking at this discussion. PS Anonymous users can also be female. Lova Falk 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Tensor Theory[edit]

Someone added a bunch of refs to something called a Tensor Network Theory of Cerebellar Function, but really did not take the trouble to explain how any of this is relevant or what it even is. My inclination was to delete the additions, but I decided to just make them fit into WP format, and give the editor a chance to perhaps amplify in simple terms the significance of these edits. Does anyone have any suggestions whether to remove them or keep them? Nrets 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Ridiculous number of references given for this one theory, and all by one author (Pellionisz). To be fair Pellionisz has written about others in the field and PubMed came up with 14 refences not all by him. Still, I agree, someone with specialist knowlegde needs proof read the theory section.
  • The mix of in-text and referenced citation style was confusing, so I've ported them all over to cite:ref style (picking up a broken link in process) and added to the details on some of the citations given. Hopes this helps :-) David Ruben Talk 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That looks better, thanks! Now, we still need to figure out what exactly this sentence means: " "Tensor Network Theory" provides a mathematical model of transformation of sensory (covariant) space-time coordinates into motor (contravariant) coordinates by cerebellar neuronal networks." Also, the modelling section that follows the theory section seems like it could be merged with it. Is anyone familiar enough with cerebellar models to sort this out? Nrets 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Tensor network theory essentially is a theory to explain how the cerebellum might act as a timing device. I can explain it crudely by analogy I guess; think of a graph that plots distance against time - a point on this graph represents a space-time co-ordinate. Now a straight line represents travel in time at a uniform speed - and different slopes correspond to travel at different speeds. Now imagine that the plane of the graph corresponds to an array of neurons in the cerebellum, and the line corresponds to active neurons in this array - the line will correspond to a movement and the speed of that movement. However, I don't really think that this needs inclusion, and the references and mention of it can be merged with the theory of cerebellum as a timing device. If anyone has the energy the theory might be worth a separate article, but I don'tGleng 10:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location[edit]

The idividule terms should be linked from the article. There is no reason why the first sentance of an article on the cerebellum should be a redirect to something that is only tangentially related. Every anatomical article would need this link at the top if we follow Nrets' reasoning on this. --Selket Talk 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right and many neuroanatomy articles do contain this, I agree it should be standard for all anatomy articles. Nrets 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Some do, but many don't. It's distracting and there is no reason why anatomical terms of direction/location should be treated any differently than other jargon terms. In orchid, when they get to stamen they just link to the stamen page. They do not have a For part of a flower see... at the top of the article. --Selket Talk 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe then, do you think it would be a good idea to provide a link in the "Brain" infobox that accompanies many Neuroanatomy articles? Nrets 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that this article doesn't cover much function. Specifically, what about the role of the olivocerebellar tract and dentato-rubrothalamocortical firbres on error correction? Also, it seems to suggest that the anterior lobe and the paleocerebellum are synonymous. Where on earth did that come from? I'm new to wikipedia but I'm really suprised that this is a featured article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You're quite right. The part about anatomical divisions was indeed wrong, but confusing the gross anatomical divisions with the phylogenetic / functional divisions is a common mistake. (You'd be surprised how common.) I've amended that, and also tried incorporating the tracts you mention. --Nehwyn 06:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be mention of lateralization in the cerebellum; is enervation contralateral or ipsilateral? At least if this information is present it is not obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brhebert (talkcontribs) 07:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainly contralateral -- I'll look for a good place to add that info, and for sources. Thanks for pointing this out. Looie496 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Hello there.

Did you realize, that the first external link "Worldwide list of laboratories that do research on the cerebellum" doesn`t function? It would be great if the one who posted that link could fix it. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed some text[edit]

I removed, "It also stimulates the main function of the penis." from the first paragraph of "General Features." It seemed out of character with the rest of the article.

If true (I'm certainly no SME), I'd like to see the information better integrated into the article. A citation would also be useful.

++ (not same editor as above) ++

Paragraph removed: "The neural tube is organized so that the alar plate typically gives rise to structures involved in sensory functions; the basal (ventral, or lower) plate gives rise to motor functioning structures. Given its alar plate origins, the cerebellum would be expected to be devoted primarily to sensory functions. Despite its embryological origin, one of the many ironies of the cerebellum is that it functions primarily to modulate motor function."

Reason: poor analysis. The cerebellum does NOT contain neurons that directly project to visceral or somatic muscle (nor ANS ganglion, for that matter). Therefore, the best functional analogy is not to ventral motor neurons but rather is to interneurons which process sensory input and influence motor output.

About technicalities[edit]

It seems difficult for me to understand the roles of the different parts of the cerebellum, especially regarding its newly-discovered cognitive functions; do the deep nuclei perform any cognitive functions, or are they involved mainly with the coordination of movement? Also need a clearer explanation of figure #4 please. 05:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. What is it particularly about figure #4 that you'd like to see explained? --Nehwyn 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the flocculonodular lobe actually located? 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Uhmm... it's exactly where figure 4 shows it. Do you mean that you can't find it in figure 3? As for the deep nuclei, they are currently considered relay stations. Cognitive functions are being attributed by recent research to the cerebellar cortex. --Nehwyn 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Cognitive functions of the cerebellum are not newly discovered, rather they are newly attended to. Read any review by Schmahmann for examples. Also, the deep nuclei are really the cerebellum's output structures, and so their involvement cerebellar-related cognitive function is sort-of necessary. Generally speaking, the lateral cerebellum is thought be involved in higher cognitive function (because it doesn't exist in sub-primate animals), and these cortical regions project to lateral nuclear regions (dentate), so that would be where you start. --Dentate 20:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does 'Granular layer' redirect to Cerebellum?[edit]

It probably should not, but since I'm no expert (yet :) ), I'll leave the final editing to someone who is. EelkeSpaak 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert either (and will probably never be), but I've asked your question in our reference desk Lova Falk 10:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about a reference desk. Since granular layers also occur in the cerebral cortex, I think the redirect is inappropriate. EelkeSpaak 15:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, granular layer should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. --Nehwyn 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cerebellar circuit diagram[edit]

The recently uploaded diagram of the cerebellar microcircuitry is an exact copy of the diagram from this paper. While it was redrawn, and does cite the source, it is basically an exact reproduction, down to the lines, layout, style, colors, shapes, etc. Also, this diagram is unnecessarily complicated for this article and lists many cell types and brain regions that are not even touched upon. Thus, I've reverted the diagram to the original version for now. If someone wants to redo the diagram from the paper in a way that it is not such an obvious copy, that should probably be OK. Nrets 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

False explanation for its name due to censorship[edit]

> cerebellum (Latin: "little brain")

This is a false explanation. The name actually comes from "bellum", which is latin for WAR, e.g. para-bellum = prepare for war). The name comes from the ancient romans observation about warriors, whose cerebellum area of the head was crushed in battle and they dropped totally dead immediately, without the slightest delay.

Even today, police snipers are trained to aim at the cerebellum (the triangular facial area between the two corners of mouth and the lowest point of the nose) to immediately and 100% reliably eliminate a dangerous criminal, e.g. one who is holding a gun to the hostage's head.

During the Moscow theatre hostage crisis, russian spec-ops troops shoot the opium-gas incapacitatd female jihadists in the cerebellum, to prevent them from involuntarily setting off their explosive vests in their sleep.

None of these is mentioned in the article, possibly because of wikipedia censorship forced by Uncle Sam. (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that police snipers are trained to aim more at the brainstem than the cerebellum. The midbrain, pons and medulla are responsible for such things as regulation or heartrate, respiration and wakefulness (via the reticular activating system) that police would probably be more interested in interrupting so as to kill a person. The cerebellum is actually more responsible for smoothing and coordinating motions. Jamestttgrays (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides all that, perhaps you would be more inclined to believe the Perseus collection at Tufts University? Their Latin dictionary is, by and large, a transcription of one available from amazon (should you be interested in buying it), which was originally written in 1879. They also believe that cerebellum means "little brain". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestttgrays (talkcontribs) 16:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Police snipers are probably just trained to aim for the center of the head because it's the best way to correct for any deviation in the bullet. That being said, Doctors can even get the rod of Asclepius right, so, who knows? Honestly, they probably have better things to do than argue over etymology. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood supply[edit]

The section on cerebellar blood supply could mistakenly be interpreted as stating that there is only one PICA whereas they are, in fact, paired. Perhaps it should be slightly reworked?

Jamestttgrays (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging of all deep cerebellar nuclei into cerebellum[edit]

I was reading on the Dentate nucleus page that there is a discussion on merging it into the cerebellum page. I know that the dentate nucleus is part of the cerebellum, but I think that it is important enough to deserve its own page. I think the dentate nucleus article needs to be expanded, and I don't have the expertise to do that, but I think merging all of the deep cerebellar nuclei pages into the cerebellum page would be a mistake. (D.c.camero (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

I also think that the dentate nucleus is important enough to deserve its own page. — fnielsen (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


The article currently says that the cerebellum is part of the archipallium, without giving a source. I don't think this is correct. The cerebellum is part of the hindbrain, but to my understanding the pallium, in all its variants, belongs to the forebrain. I propose to remove these statements, but wonder whether anybody would like to comment first. looie496 (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a longer cerbellum increase strength and mobility?[edit]

My subject line speaks for itself. Alex Bieser (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

By "longer" do you mean larger? If so: strength, no. Mobility, in the sense of coordination, maybe. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How many neurons does the cerebellum have?[edit]

Up top in General Features, this article says the cerebellum has 50% of all the brain's neurons. The section on the granular layer says that the cerebellum has 60-80 billion granular cells, making up 70% of all the brain's neurons. Which is correct? I think the first statistic is closer to 90%. Quantumelfmage (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures I learned are about 40 billion cerebellar granule cells and about 10 billion neurons in the rest of the brain, but there is probably more recent research that updates those numbers. Looie496 (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

As a 2005 featured article, this article has huge chunks of uncited text, and should be cited or submitted to WP:FAR. Also, please see WP:MEDRS regarding primary sources vs. secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually irrespective of sources this article is well short of giving an accurate and comprehensive picture of current understanding of the cerebellum -- it really shouldn't be an FA without major work. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to nom it at FAR, or should I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I see you're at work on it; should I hold off on FAR? I've done all I can, but I find the jargon dense and inpenetrable :) Are you able to cite and correct the dense jargon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've gotten started, I'd like to work on the content some, and an ongoing FAR would only get in the way, so holding off for a little while would be good. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll unwatch for now; ping me when I should take another look, pls? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cerebellar Peduncles[edit]

There is nothing on this page about the cerebellar peduncles, despite the fact that pages for the superior, middle and inferior cerebellar peduncles exist. Furthermore, searching for cerebellar peduncles redirects to this article rather than the other three. I would fix this myself, but I'm already procrastinating too much as it is and I don't know how to fix redirects (I think it would be more appropriate if a search for cerebellar peduncles redirected to one of the actual articles, and I think there's an argument for merging those three articles). Seasunsky (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I'm adding a link to the cerebellar peduncles until the information can be better integrated here.--Xris0 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Motor Function vs. Cognitive Effects of the Cerebellum[edit]

The page only have a few citations of cognitive function of the Cerebellum, and I haven't run across this view very often. Since this isn't commonly referred to in the physiological literature I have, I was wondering if this still represents a minority or fringe viewpoint or if it has become definitive? Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say for certain, especially since I haven't tracked the details of the cerebellar literature for the last few years. However, the journal Cerebellum devoted a special issue to this topic in 2007 -- PMID 17786810 gives an overview. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted my Edit? (Evolution Section)[edit]

Hi Looie496 -- I noticed that you reverted my edit to the evolution section. Could you tell me why please? The information wasn't already included in the article, and it was well referenced with links to scholarly journals and a reference book.

For reference, I added in the following:

"The cerebellum first evolved as a small outgrowth from the vestibular nuclei of the medulla, which is involved in balance."[1][2]

"It has been suggested that the evolution of the cerebellum was originally an adaptation to predation, enabling precise attacking movements to be coordinated."[2][3]

I think the information was relevant, maybe you reverted it because you disagree? Reidlophile (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me first point out that you weren't logged in when you made those edits, and your IP address was clearly not fixed (because you made similar edits to the pons article from a different address), so I had no way of contacting you to discuss the issue. What I immediately perceived was that all your edits are referencing the Haycock book, which seems to be self-published and in any case would not be an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy (as outlined at WP:RS). My perception was that those edits were probably a form of disguised spam, which we see a lot of. The two statements that you added are speculative, and the sources given (even disregarding the Haycock book) are not authoritative enough to justify having them here. Note that in the pons article I left your added material in place, and only removed the Haycock book from the list of sources. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I reread my post and it came across as a bit snarky, which I didn't intend. I just thought the information was worth including, and felt a bit miffed when it was reverted as spam. The Haycock book is my main source - it has quite an extensive section on the evolution of the brain, and I was going to go through the various brain regions and add in sections about their evolution. Will this be considered spam? Why isn't it a valid source? Reidlophile (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Normally a book is considered an acceptable source if (a) the author has established a strong reputation by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals or mainstream media, or (b) the publisher has a strong reputation for fact-checking books that it publishes. I can't see that the Haycock book meets either of those criteria -- in fact I could hardly find out anything at all about it, beyond seeing it in Google Books (with a really garish cover). Regarding the added sentences, the first one is probably in part correct, except that the cerebellum clearly evolved in fish and fish-like creatures resembling the lamprey, which do not balance. Also, a teaching manual for neurologic exams is not a good source for a statement like that -- much better ones are available. The second statement is pure speculation -- it is just as likely that the cerebellum evolved to serve the vestibulo-ocular reflex. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


As declive redirects here it should be incorporated into the article. A source is CFCF (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe in anatomy of the cerebellum? This article already has more anatomical terminology than it really ought to. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)