A triple representation of the body surface in the sensorimotor cortex of the squirrel monkey

Zimmerman, Irwin D.

doi:10.1016/0014-4886(68)90084-8

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been found in several earlier reports that the motor cortext of primates (Hirsch & Coxe, 1958;Zimmerman, 1968;Kruger, 1956) and especially also PT cells (Rose'n & Asanuma, 1972) receive a cutaneous afferent input; this was confirmed in this study. Most recently, it was shown by Rose'n & Asanuma (1972) that receptive fields of precentral cells activated by tactile stimuli were concentrated on the glabrous volar surface of the hand and were within cortical efferent zones, whose electrical micro-stimulation produced finger flexion.…”

Section: Afferent Input To Pjecentral Neurones 217supporting

confidence: 89%

“…At first sight it would seem reasonable to assume that the adjacent motor cortex is utilizing these messages arriving in area 3 a. However, the Alternatively, the PT neurones could be tested with and without group I muscle afferents, the latter being eliminated during a DC anodal block leaving the thinner group II afferents intact (Mendell -& Wall, 1964;Manfredi, 1970 Gordon & Miller (1969) It has been found in several earlier reports that the motor cortext of primates (Hirsch & Coxe, 1958;Zimmerman, 1968;Kruger, 1956) and especially also PT cells (Rose'n & Asanuma, 1972) receive a cutaneous afferent input; this was confirmed in this study. Most recently, it was shown by Rose'n & Asanuma (1972) that receptive fields of precentral cells activated by tactile stimuli were concentrated on the glabrous volar surface of the hand and were within cortical efferent zones, whose electrical micro-stimulation produced finger flexion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Input from muscle and cutaneous nerves of the hand and forearm to neurones of the precentral gyrus of baboons and monkeys

Wiesendanger¹

1973

The Journal of Physiology

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

3. Responses to electrical stimulation of the deep (motor) radial nerve, the deep palmar (motor) branch of the ulnar nerve, and the superficial (cutaneous) radial nerve could be recorded in the majority of neurones of the motor cortex provided that short trains of strong stimuli were used.Minimal responses to muscle nerve stimulation were observed in a few neurones at 1P4 x group I threshold, but most units reacted only with higher stimulus intensities (2-3 x group I threshold).4. The latencies to peripheral nerve stimulation were measured from the first peak of the incoming volley recorded at the root entry zone. The mean response latencies of pyramidal tract cells were between 20 and 25 msec; non-pyramidal tract cells were activated at slightly shorter mean latencies, the difference being significant for superficial radial nerve stimulation only (4 msec). These latencies are more than twice as long as those recorded in the postcentral gyrus, and the probability of discharge is lower than for postcentral neurones. 5. A further difference between neurones of the postcentral and precentral gyrus is the pronounced convergence from different nerves and also from different modalities (cutaneous and muscle afferents) in units of the precentral cortex in contrast to units of the postcentral cortex.

show abstract

Section: Afferent Input To Pjecentral Neurones 217supporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input from muscle and cutaneous nerves of the hand and forearm to neurones of the precentral gyrus of baboons and monkeys

Wiesendanger¹

1973

The Journal of Physiology

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Bradley et al (1998) compared results based on electrical stimulation of a nerve with those obtained previously by natural stimulation. Electrical stimulation activates larger cortical territories than natural stimulation (e.g., Blomquist and Lorenzini, 1965;Zimmerman, 1968;Pratt et al, 1979;McCarthy et al, 1991;Forss et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The genitals and gluteal skin are represented lateral to the foot in anterior parietal somatosensory cortex of macaques

Rothemund

Collins

et al. 2002

Somatosensory & Motor Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detailed electrophysiological maps of the representations of trunk and adjacent body parts in area 3b and area 1 of somatosensory cortex were obtained in three macaque monkeys (Macaca mulatta and Macaca radiata) of either sex. A total of 211 microelectrode penetrations 250-300 microm apart resulted in 1,190 recording sites. During penetrations deep into the posterior bank of the central sulcus, recordings were made every 300 microm to depths of 6-7 mm until sites unresponsive to somatic stimuli were reached. Cortex was later cut parasagittally and sections were stained for cytochrome oxidase (CO) or Nissl substance. Contrary to expectations from earlier reports, the genitalia were represented lateral to the representations of the foot in cortex along the area 3b/1 border. The gluteal skin including the gluteal pads and the base of the tail were also represented in this section of cortex. Only a small region of cortex was devoted to the genitalia, and neurons in this cortex had receptive fields that were large and typically included skin of the inner thigh and belly. The lower, middle and upper trunk were represented more laterally, followed by the neck, upper head and arm. The receptive fields on the trunk were roughly the same size as those for the middle and lower trunk and slightly smaller on the upper trunk.

show abstract

Double representation of the body surface within cytoarchitectonic area 3b and 1 in “SI” in the owl monkey (aotus trivirgatus)

Merzenich

Kaas

Sur

et al. 1978

J of Comparative Neurology

444

249

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microelectrode multiunit mapping studies of parietal cortex in owl monkeys indicate that the classical "primary" somatosensory region (or "SI") including the separate architectonic fields 3a, 3b, 1, and 2 contains as many as four separate representations of the body rather than one, An analysis of receptive field locations for extensive arrays of closely placed recording sites in parietal cortex which were later related to cortical architecture led t o the following conclusions: (1) There are two large systematic representations of the body surface within "SI." Each is activated by low threshold cutaneous stimuli; one representation is coextensive with Area 3b and the other with Area 1. (2) While each of these representations contains regions of cortex with topological or "somatotopic" transformations of skin surface, the representations have many discontinuities where adjoining skin surfaces are not adjoining in the representations. Thus, the representations can be considered as composites of somatotopically organized regions, but cannot be accurately depicted by simple continuous homunculi. Lines of discontinuity often cut across dermatomes and seldom follow dermatomal boundaries, i.e., neither cutaneous representation constitutes a systematic representation of dermatomal skin fields. (3) While the two cutaneous fields are basically similar in organization and are approximate mirror images of each other, they differ in important details, i.e., lines of discontinuity in the representations and the sites of representations of different specific skin surfaces differ significantly in the two representations. ( 4 ) The two cutaneous representations also differ in size and in the relative proportions of cortex devoted to representation of various body parts. Because the proportions in each representation differ, they cannot both be simple reflections of overall peripheral innervation density. ( 5 ) All or part of Area 2 contains a systematic representation of deep body structures.These conclusions are consistent with a view of the anterior parietal region as containing functionally distinct fields a t least partially related to different subsets of receptor populations and coding or representing different aspects of somatic sensation. We suggest that the "SI" region of primates be redefined as a parietal somatosensory strip, the Area 1 representation as the posterior cutaneous field, and, for reasons of probable homology with "SI" of other mammals, the Area 3b representation as SI proper.

show abstract

A triple representation of the body surface in the sensorimotor cortex of the squirrel monkey

Cited by 19 publications

References 12 publications

Input from muscle and cutaneous nerves of the hand and forearm to neurones of the precentral gyrus of baboons and monkeys

Input from muscle and cutaneous nerves of the hand and forearm to neurones of the precentral gyrus of baboons and monkeys

The genitals and gluteal skin are represented lateral to the foot in anterior parietal somatosensory cortex of macaques

Double representation of the body surface within cytoarchitectonic area 3b and 1 in “SI” in the owl monkey (aotus trivirgatus)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About