Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
For the last thirty-five years, widely varying opinions have been expressed on: questions of cerebellar nomenclature, the positions of such fundamental lines of division as the secondary fissure and the prepyramidal sulcus, and the arrangement and the homology of the lobes. As it appears certain that an answer to these questions will not be found in further comparative anatomic investigations, their solution must be looked for in the discovery of new facts which, by establishing a fresh point of view, will make it possible to approach these problems from a different angle. During the past four years I have been presenting papers at neurologic meetings both in America and abroad on the response of the cerebellar cortex to stimulation.1As these reactions of the individual lobes, which were obtained in the cat, rabbit and monkey, supply such important information regarding function, it should be of interest to consider what
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aubrey T. Mussen (1930) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: