In less than three decades, the concept “cerebellar neurocognition” has evolved from a mere afterthought to an entirely new and multifaceted area of neuroscientific research. A close interplay between three main strands of contemporary neuroscience induced a substantial modification of the traditional view of the cerebellum as a mere coordinator of autonomic and somatic motor functions. Indeed, the wealth of current evidence derived from detailed neuroanatomical investigations, functional neuroimaging studies with healthy subjects and patients and in-depth neuropsychological assessment of patients with cerebellar disorders shows that the cerebellum has a cardinal role to play in affective regulation, cognitive processing, and linguistic function. Although considerable progress has been made in models of cerebellar function, controversy remains regarding the exact role of the “linguistic cerebellum” in a broad variety of nonmotor language processes. This consensus paper brings together a range of different viewpoints and opinions regarding the contribution of the cerebellum to language function. Recent developments and insights in the nonmotor modulatory role of the cerebellum in language and some related disorders will be discussed. The role of the cerebellum in speech and language perception, in motor speech planning including apraxia of speech, in verbal working memory, in phonological and semantic verbal fluency, in syntax processing, in the dynamics of language production, in reading and in writing will be addressed. In addition, the functional topography of the linguistic cerebellum and the contribution of the deep nuclei to linguistic function will be briefly discussed. As such, a framework for debate and discussion will be offered in this consensus paper.

Although there is substantial evidence that glutamate mimics the effects of light on the mammalian circadian clockin vitro, it has been reported that microinjection of glutamate into the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus (SCN) regionin vivodoes not result in a pattern of phase shifts that mimic those caused by light pulses. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that microinjection of NMDA into the SCN would induce light-like phase shifts of the circadian clock through activation of the NMDA receptor. Hamsters housed in constant darkness received microinjections of NMDA through guide cannulas aimed at the SCN region at various times throughout the circadian cycle. Wheel running was monitored as a measure of circadian phase. Microinjection of NMDA resulted in circadian phase shifts, the size and direction of which were dependent on the time of injection. The resulting phase–response curve closely resembled that of light. The circadian response showed a clear dose-dependence at circadian time (CT) 13.5 but not at CT19. Both phase delays and advances induced by NMDA were blocked by coinjection of the NMDA antagonist 2-amino-5-phosphopentanoic acid but were slightly attenuated by the non-NMDA antagonist 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione disodium. The ability of NMDA to induce phase shifts was not altered by coinjection with tetrodotoxin. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that activation of NMDA receptors is a critical step in the transmission of photic information to the SCN.