Article

Relationship between the corticostriatal terminals from areas 9 and 46, and those from area 8A, dorsal and rostral premotor cortex and area 24c: An anatomical substrate for cognition to action

Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, New York 14642, USA.
European Journal of Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 3.67). 11/2007; 26(7):2005-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05825.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our previous data indicate that there are specific features of the corticostriatal pathways from the prefrontal cortex. First, corticostriatal pathways are composed of focal, circumscribed projections and of diffuse, widespread projections. Second, there is some convergence between terminal fields from different functional regions of the prefrontal cortex. Third, anterior cingulate projections from area 24b occupy a large region of the rostral striatum. The goal of this study was to determine whether these features are also common to the corticostriatal projections from area 8A (including the frontal eye field; FEF), the supplementary eye field (SEF), dorsal and rostral premotor cortex (PMdr) and area 24c. Using a new approach of three-dimensional reconstruction of the corticostriatal pathways, along with dual cortical tracer injections, we mapped the corticostriatal terminal fields from areas 9 and 46, 8A-FEF, SEF, PMdr and 24b and c. In addition, we placed injections of retrogradely transported tracers into key striatal regions. The results demonstrated that: (i) a diffuse projection system is a common feature of the corticostriatal projections from different frontal regions; (ii) key striatal regions receive convergent projections from areas 9 and 46 and from areas 8A-FEF, SEF, PMdr and 24c, suggesting a potential pivotal role of these striatal regions in integrating cortical information; (iii) projections from area 24c, like those from area 24b, terminate widely throughout the striatum, interfacing with terminals from several frontal areas. These features of the corticostriatal frontal pathways suggest a potential integrative striatal network for learning.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Philippe Mailly, Aug 28, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
60 Views
  • Source
    • "However, the fact that SEF also represented the precursor signals necessary to compute reward prediction error suggests instead an alternative possibility . SEF could compute the reward prediction error signals locally without input from other structures and send them to the dopaminergic midbrain nuclei and the habenula via connections through the basal ganglia (Calzavara et al., 2007; Hong and Hikosaka, 2008). In addition, local computation of reward prediction error could occur also in other cortical areas, as suggested by recent studies in OFC (Sul et al., 2010) and ACC (Seo and Lee, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The medial frontal cortex has been suggested to play a role in the control, monitoring, and selection of behavior. The supplementary eye field (SEF) is a cortical area within medial frontal cortex that is involved in the regulation of eye movements. Neurophysiological studies in the SEF of macaque monkeys have systematically investigated the role of SEF in various behavioral control and monitoring functions. Inhibitory control studies indicate that SEF neurons do not directly participate in the initiation of eye movements. Instead, recent value-based decision making studies suggest that the SEF participates in the control of eye movements by representing the context-dependent action values of all currently possible oculomotor behaviors. These action value signals in SEF would be useful in directing the activity distribution in more primary oculomotor areas, to guide decisions towards behaviorally optimal choices. SEF also does not participate in the fast, inhibitory control of eye movements in response to sudden changes in the task requirements. Instead, it participates in the long-term regulation of oculomotor excitability to adjust the speed-accuracy tradeoff. The context-dependent control signals found in SEF (including the action value signals) have to be learned and continuously adjusted in response to changes in the environment. This is likely the function of the large number of different response monitoring and evaluation signals in SEF. In conclusion, the overall function of SEF in goal-directed behavior seems to be the learning of context-dependent rules that allow predicting the likely consequences of different eye movements. This map of action value signals could be used so that eye movements are selected that best fulfill the current long-term goal of the agent. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Journal of Physiology-Paris 02/2015; 109(1-3). DOI:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2015.02.002 · 2.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The engagement of frontal regions has been documented in children as young as 4–6 years of age (4) and the maturation of the circuit (including the basal ganglia and the parietal lobe) extends through adolescence (3, 5). This multi-node attention network (6) includes executive regions of the frontal lobe (the dorsal prefrontal cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate), regions such as the basal ganglia (including the caudate and the putamen) that presumably play central roles in relaying information between and linking signals across brain networks (7, 8), and the parietal lobe that is essential for mechanisms of spatial orientation (9). The ascent of attention competence in adolescence corresponds with linear progression in the development of and anatomical connectivity between these key brain structures in the attention network (10, 11). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abnormalities in the brain's attention network may represent early identifiable neurobiological impairments in individuals at increased risk for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Here, we provide evidence of dysfunctional regional and network function in adolescents at higher genetic risk for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder [henceforth higher risk (HGR)]. During fMRI, participants engaged in a sustained attention task with variable demands. The task alternated between attention (120 s), visual control (passive viewing; 120 s), and rest (20 s) epochs. Low and high demand attention conditions were created using the rapid presentation of two- or three-digit numbers. Subjects were required to detect repeated presentation of numbers. We demonstrate that the recruitment of cortical and striatal regions are disordered in HGR: relative to typical controls (TC), HGR showed lower recruitment of the dorsal prefrontal cortex, but higher recruitment of the superior parietal cortex. This imbalance was more dramatic in the basal ganglia. There, a group by task demand interaction was observed, such that increased attention demand led to increased engagement in TC, but disengagement in HGR. These activation studies were complemented by network analyses using dynamic causal modeling. Competing model architectures were assessed across a network of cortical-striatal regions, distinguished at a second level using random-effects Bayesian model selection. In the winning architecture, HGR were characterized by significant reductions in coupling across both frontal-striatal and frontal-parietal pathways. The effective connectivity analyses indicate emergent network dysconnection, consistent with findings in patients with schizophrenia. Emergent patterns of regional dysfunction and dysconnection in cortical-striatal pathways may provide functional biological signatures in the adolescent risk-state for psychiatric illness.
    Frontiers in Psychiatry 05/2014; 5:50. DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00050
  • Source
    • "Along these lines, it has been distinguished between open and closed cortico-BG-thalamic loops (Figure 2E; Alexander et al., 1986; Joel and Weiner, 1994; Haber, 2003): while closed loops connect a particular area of cortex back to that same cortical area, open loops interconnect different areas of cortex. Anatomical crossovers between loops have indeed been described, in particular for cortico-striatal synapses (e.g., Inase et al., 1996; Takada et al., 1998; Calzavara et al., 2007) and cortico-thalamic synapses (Darian-Smith et al., 1999; McFarland and Haber, 2002). BG pathways might have entirely different functions in open loops than in closed loops. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past 15 years, computational models have had a considerable impact on basal-ganglia research. Most of these models implement multiple distinct basal-ganglia pathways and assume them to fulfill different functions. As there is now a multitude of different models, it has become complex to keep track of their various, sometimes just marginally different assumptions on pathway functions. Moreover, it has become a challenge to oversee to what extent individual assumptions are corroborated or challenged by empirical data. Focusing on computational, but also considering non-computational models, we review influential concepts of pathway functions and show to what extent they are compatible with or contradict each other. Moreover, we outline how empirical evidence favors or challenges specific model assumptions and propose experiments that allow testing assumptions against each other.
    Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 12/2013; 7:122. DOI:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00122
Show more