” The three anatomical components that we will discuss in this review are the cerebellum, basal ganglia, and motor cortex (Figure 1). The review, not surprisingly, raises more questions than answers, and if anything should be considered a form of manifesto. The overall purpose is to call attention to the benefits of a comparative approach. First, we hope to show that explicit comparison of motor learning Alpelisib in vivo results across the various model systems currently under investigation can help support or refute viewpoints on the role of specific structures. Second, to inspire

experimental directions in any given model system that might otherwise not be considered. Finally, given that neurorehabilitation is predicated on motor learning (Krakauer, 2006), taking a closer look at how motor learning itself is accomplished after brain injury and disease in model systems may improve the way that we train patients to gain back their lost motor abilities. Motor learning is a blanket term for any practice-related change or improvement in motor performance for a defined

variable of interest. In this review, we will draw a broad distinction between two learning mechanisms—motor adaptation and skill learning. By motor adaptation we mean the fast changes that return behavior to baseline levels of performance in the setting of perturbations that induce systematic errors, for example, prism adaptation. By skill learning we mean the slower changes that lead to performance improvements

Phosphoprotein phosphatase that are better than click here baseline. Such behaviors include learning to ride a bicycle or to play the violin. In addition to these two kinds of motor learning, there is an intermediate category of learning that is more difficult to categorize but can be broadly captured by the idea of action selection. The whole field of reinforcement learning is predicated on the idea that particular actions come to be associated with successful goal completion. For example, completing a maze or learning to press a lever for food at particular intervals. The question is—is this motor skill learning? We would say no because the quality of the motor performance itself is not the metric of interest, instead the motor system is just used to read out whether operant learning has occurred. We will have more to say about this in the course of the review. For now we will restrict ourselves to the comment that it is of interest that many studies of skill have focused on sequence learning, in which the order in which actions must be performed is almost always emphasized over the quality of the execution of the actions themselves. There are clear preferences with regard to the kind of motor learning studied depending on the effector and model system used. For example, in the case of eye movements, the focus is mostly on adaptation (Schubert and Zee, 2010), indeed it is hard to imagine what a skilled eye movement would be.