Responses of vestibulospinal neurons to neck and macular vestibular inputs in the presence or absence of the paleocerebellum.

1. The role of the paleocerebellum in determining the responses of lateral vestibular nucleus (LVN) neurons either to independent or combined stimulation of macular vestibular and neck receptors has been investigated in decerebrate cats. Sinusoidal rotation around the longitudinal axis at 0.026 Hz, 5-10 degrees, represented the constant input parameters. Among the tested neurons, 100 and 131 units were recorded in animals with intact cerebellum and following partial cerebellectomy, respectively. The units were classified according to their anatomical location in either the rostroventral (cLVN) or dorsocaudal (ILVN) part of the LVN; units also were activated antidromically from the spinal cord. 2. The majority of units responded to stimulation of macular receptors both in preparations with intact cerebellum (75.0%) or with partial cerebellectomy (71.8%), the response being primarily in phase with the direction of animal orientation. The proportion of responding units and their response sensitivity were greater in the cLVN than ILVN in each preparation; no significant differences in mean firing rate and response sensitivity were observed between the two preparations for each subdivision of the LVN. In animals with cerebellum intact, the majority of cLVN and ILVN units were excited during side-down tilt; following partial cerebellectomy, this predominant response pattern still was present in cLVN but was reversed in ILVN. 3. About one-half of the units responded to sinusoidal stimulation of neck receptors in both preparations, the response being mainly in phase with the direction of neck orientation. In the intact cerebellum preparations, the proportion of cLVN units responding to neck rotation was greater than that of ILVN units, but no difference in response sensitivity was observed between these units. Following partial cerebellectomy, the proportion of cLVN units responsive to the neck input was reduced but that of ILVN units was not; however, the average response sensitivity was halved for both cLVN and ILVN units. In preparations with cerebellum intact, most of the cLVN units were excited during side-down neck rotation, whereas ILVN units were excited mainly by rotation in the opposite sense; following partial cerebellectomy, the majority of units were excited during side-up neck rotation, not only in ILVN but also in cLVN. 4. Units receiving a convergent input from both receptors were more numerous in cLVN (72.7%) than ILVN (41.8%) in preparations with intact cerebellum; following partial cerebellectomy, this disproportion of responsive units in the two divisions (45.3% and 44.9%, respectively) disappeared, due to a reduced number of cLVN units responding to the neck input. In both preparations, the macular input had a relatively greater influence on the cLVN whereas the neck input was more effective on the ILVN. 5...