Abstract Based on our previous assumption that the brain must be considered a tensorial entity ( Pellionisz & Llinas, 1979 a), a concise model for cerebellar function is proposed: The cerebellum acts as a metric tensor establishing a geometry for the CNS motor hyperspace. This view assumes that the brain is a ‘geometrical object’, that is to say, (1) activity in the neuronal network is vectorial, and (2) the networks are organized tensorially: i.e. activity vectors remain invariant to changes in reference-frames. Understanding brain functions becomes, then, the establishment of the inherent geometrical properties of the activity vectors and, more fundamentally, the determination of the properties of the multi-dimensional internal space (a frequency hyperspace) in which the vectorial transformations occur. A basic question is the form in which vectors are expressed. Are the components orthogonal projections to an oblique set of coordinate-axes or are they the parallelogram vectorial components? Beyond this, the question arises as to whether the CNS hyperspace is endowed with a geometry determined by a metric tensor. Thus the problem of motor coordination is approached geometrically: in these terms intended movements, i.e. intended movement vectors, are generated in the CNS in reference to the three-dimensional space. These movements are executed, however, by the multiparameter system representing the musculo-skeletal apparatus. Given this increase in dimensionality the question of uniqueness needs to be answered: how are the particular components of a motor vector established if they only represent one choice out of the infinite set of possible vectorial solutions? The tensorial treatment of motor coordination suggests that the problem is solved by the embedding of the external three-space into the multidimensional CNS space and that this hyperspace is endowed with a metric tensor represented, for movements, by the cerebellar neuronal network. Thus, a unique implementation of the three-dimensional intended movement is possible by a proposed two-step scheme: First, an intended movement vector is specified by an overcomplete number of CNS covariant vector-components. Second, since covariant components cannot be used directly to execute a movement vector (they yield ‘dysmetric’ movements), they are transformed into contravariant, physical, components of the final motor output. This transformation is the proposed role of the cerebellar metric tensor, resulting in a coordinated unique implementation of movements. While in this paper the vectorial components transformed by the metric are treated as space coordinates, it has not escaped our attention that the movement space-time is actually four dimensional. This point will be elaborated in a forthcoming paper in which the above concept of metric tensor is expanded to include space-time coordinates. Thus, the predictive feature of cerebellar action together with the metric concept provide a unified approach to the dynamic properties of motor control. Beyond providing a geometrical model of motor coordination by the cerebellum, the tensorial approach suggests that the ‘covariant analysis’ and ‘contravariant synthesis’, via metric tensor, may be a general principle of the organization of the CNS.

[1]
H. Scherer,et al.
THE FORMS OF GROWTH IN GLIOMAS AND THEIR PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
,
1940
.

[2]
C. Sherrington.
Integrative Action of the Nervous System
,
1907
.

[3]
A. L. Yarbus,et al.
Eye Movements and Vision
,
1967,
Springer US.

[4]
L. M. MILNE-THOMSON,et al.
Vector and Tensor Analysis
,
1949,
Nature.

[5]
Peter H. Greene,et al.
Problems of Organization of Motor Systems
,
1972
.

[6]
P. Viviani,et al.
The curvature of oblique saccades
,
1977,
Vision Research.

[7]
G. Holmes.
THE CEREBELLUM OF MAN
,
1939
.

[8]
S. Grossberg.
Some Networks That Can Learn, Remember, and Reproduce any Number of Complicated Space-Time Patterns, I
,
1969
.

[9]
M. Mead,et al.
Cybernetics
,
1953,
The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[10]
Leon N. Cooper,et al.
A possible organization of animal memory and learning
,
1973
.

[11]
W R Ashby,et al.
The place of the brain in the natural world.
,
1967,
Currents in modern biology.

[12]
E Bizzi,et al.
The coordination of eye-head movements.
,
1974,
Scientific American.

[13]
W. McCulloch,et al.
Embodiments of Mind
,
1966
.

[14]
A. L. I︠A︡rbus.
Eye Movements and Vision
,
1967
.

[15]
T. Kohonen,et al.
A principle of neural associative memory
,
1977,
Neuroscience.

[16]
H Von Foerster.
Computation in neural nets.
,
1967,
Currents in modern biology.

[17]
R. Llinás,et al.
Eighteenth Bowditch lecture. Motor aspects of cerebellar control.
,
1974,
The Physiologist.

[18]
Gabriel Kron,et al.
Tensor analysis of networks
,
1967
.

[19]
A. Pellionisz,et al.
Brain modeling by tensor network theory and computer simulation. The cerebellum: Distributed processor for predictive coordination
,
1979,
Neuroscience.

[20]
S. Grossberg.
Some Networks that can Learn, Remember, and Reproduce any Number of Complicated Space-time
,
1970
.

[21]
Heinz von Foerster.
Computation in neural nets
,
1967
.

[22]
R. Woodworth,et al.
The Integrative Action of the Nervous System
,
1908
.

[23]
D. Robinson.
Eye movements evoked by collicular stimulation in the alert monkey.
,
1972,
Vision research.