Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorMarius PeelenRadboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands
- Senior EditorFloris de LangeDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This is an interesting and well-written paper reporting on a novel approach to studying cerebellar function based on the idea of selective recruitment using fMRI. The study is well-designed and executed. Analyses are sound and results are properly discussed. The paper makes a significant contribution to broadening our understanding of the role of the cerebellum in human behavior.
- While the authors provide a compelling case for the link between BOLD and the cerebellar cortical input layer, there remains considerable unexplained variance. Perhaps the authors could elaborate a bit more on the assumption that BOLD signals mainly reflect the input side of the cerebellum (see for example King et al., elife. 2023 Apr 21;12:e81511).
- The current approach does not appear to take the non-linear relationships between BOLD and neural activity into account.
- The authors may want to address a bit more the issue of closed loops as well as the underlying neuroanatomy including the deep cerebellar nuclei and pontine nuclei in the context of their current cerebello-cortical correlational approach. But also the contribution of other brain areas such as the basal ganglia and hippocampus.
- What about the direct projections of mossy fibers to the DCN that actually bypasses the cerebellar cortex?
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
Shahshahani and colleagues used a combination of statistical modelling and whole-brain fMRI data in an attempt to separate the contributions of cortical and cerebellar regions in different cognitive contexts.
Strengths:
* The manuscript uses a sophisticated integration of statistical methods, cognitive neuroscience, and systems neurobiology.
* The authors use multiple statistical approaches to ensure robustness in their conclusions.
* The consideration of the cerebellum as not a purely 'motor' structure is excellent and important.
Weaknesses:
* Two of the foundation assumptions of the model - that cerebellar BOLD signals reflect granule cells > purkinje neurons and that corticocerebellar connections are relatively invariant - are still open topics of investigation. It might be helpful for the reader if these ideas could be presented in a more nuanced light.
* The assumption that cortical BOLD responses in cognitive tasks should be matched irrespective of cerebellar involvement does not cohere with the idea of 'forcing functions' introduced by Houk and Wise.