The organization of the connections between the cortex and the claustrum in the monkey

Pearson, R.C.A.; Brodal, Per; Gatter, K C; Powell, T. P. S.

doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)90883-6

Cited by 163 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In cat and monkey the claustrum is reciprocally connected with the primary somatosensory areas (Olson and Graybiel, 1980;Mufson and Mesulam, 1982;Pearson et al, 1982). In the rat, no previous study reported similar connections, which were probably missed because retrograde tracer injections did not target lamina VI.…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Projections to layer VI of the posteromedial barrel field in the rat: a reappraisal of the role of corticothalamic pathways

Zhang

Deschênes²

1998

Cerebral Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study bears on afferents that terminate in layer VI of the posteromedial barrel field in the rat. Their origin was determined by the retrograde transport of cholera toxin, and their axonal arborizations were revealed by targeting injections of biotinylated dextran amine in regions that contained retrogradely labeled neurons. Afferents to lamina VI arise from the thalamus (the ventral posteromedial, the posterior group and the intralaminar nuclei), the claustrum and the infragranular layers of other somatomotor regions of the neocortex (the motor, second somatosensory and perirhinal cortices). Among these afferent systems, corticocortical axons, particularly those issuing from the motor cortex, give rise to the most profuse projections in layer VI, whereas thalamic and claustral afferents form sparse terminal fields. Because corticothalamic cells represent ∼50% of the neuronal population in lamina VI and 73% of their dendritic processes are deployed locally, it seems likely that afferents arising from the infragranular layers of the motor cortex may directly influence the firing of these neurons. These anatomical data suggest that the role of corticothalamic pathways should be studied from the viewpoint that sensory perception is an active process which operates under the guidance of motor activities.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Projections to layer VI of the posteromedial barrel field in the rat: a reappraisal of the role of corticothalamic pathways

Zhang

Deschênes²

1998

Cerebral Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When electrophysiological recordings were used in parallel with neuroanatomical tracers, orderly and independent retinotopic and somatotopic maps were found within the cat's claustrum (Olson and Graybiel, 1980) and spatially patterned afferent projections from other sensory cortices were reported in the primate (Berke, 1960;Kemp and Powell, 1970;Künzle and Akert, 1977;Turner et al, 1980;Pearson et al, 1982;Ungerleider et al, 1984;Baizer et al, 1997;Tanné-Gariépy et al, 2002). To accommodate these widespread anatomical afferents and the heterogeneous neural response properties, the hypothesis regarding the claustrum as an integrator of sensory information was promoted Sherk and LeVay, 1981;Ettlinger and Wilson, 1990;Edelstein and Denaro, 2004;Crick and Koch, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This hypothesis was promoted by a combination of indirect anatomical and functional evidence. First, anatomical studies revealed afferent connections from various cortical and subcortical sensory structures (Pearson et al, 1982;Tanné-Gariépy et al, 2002;Fernández-Miranda et al, 2008) and reported an apparent topographical mapping of the neocortex onto the claustrum (Pearson et al, 1982;Sherk, 1986;Fernández-Miranda et al, 2008). Second, electrophysiological studies reported claustral neurons that responded to stimuli in the visual, acoustic, and somatic modalities (Segundo and Machne, 1955;Spector et al, 1970Spector et al, , 1974Olson and Graybiel, 1980;LeVay and Sherk, 1981;Sherk and LeVay, 1981;Clarey and Irvine, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unimodal Responses Prevail within the Multisensory Claustrum

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claustrum receives afferent inputs from multiple sensory-related brain areas, prompting speculation about a role in integrating information across sensory modalities. Here we directly test this hypothesis by probing neurons in the primate claustrum for functional characteristics of multisensory processing. To this end we recorded neuronal responses to naturalistic audio-visual stimuli from the claustra of alert monkeys. Our results reveal the existence of distinct claustral zones comprised of unimodal neurons associated with the auditory and visual modalities. In a visual zone within the ventral claustrum neurons responded to visual stimuli but not to sounds, whereas in an auditory zone located within the central claustrum neurons responded to sounds but not to visual stimuli. Importantly, we find that neurons within either zone are not influenced by stimuli in the other modality and do not exhibit the typical response characteristics usually associated with multisensory processing. While these results confirm the notion of the claustrum as a multisensory structure per se, they argue against the hypothesis of the claustrum serving as an integrator of sensory information.

show abstract

“…It is well-known that multisensory processing is mediated by a widely distributed network of brain regions involving multisensory convergence zones in cortical regions such as the superior temporal sulcus, intraparietal sulcus, posterior insula and frontal regions including premotor, prefrontal and anterior cingulate (Jones and Powell, 1970, Seltzer and Pandya, 1989and Mesulam and Mufson, 1982, as well as subcortical structures including the claustrum, the superior colliculus and the hippocampus (Mesulam and Mufson, 1982, Pearson et. al, 1982, Mufson and Mesulam, 1989, Desimone and Cross et al, 1979, Vaadia et al, 1986and Duhamel et al, 1991and Meredith and Stein, 1996) (see for review Calvert et.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory integration for timing engages different brain networks

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the brain integrate information from different senses into a unitary percept? What factors influence such multisensory integration? Using a rhythmic behavioral paradigm and functional magnetic resonance imaging, we identified networks of brain regions for perceptions of physically synchronous and asynchronous auditory-visual events. Measures of behavioral performance revealed the existence of three distinct perceptual states. Perception of asynchrony activated a network of the primary sensory, prefrontal, and inferior parietal cortices, perception of synchrony disengaged the inferior parietal cortex and further recruited the superior colliculus, and when no clear percept was established, only the residual areas comprised of prefrontal and sensory areas were active. These results indicate that distinct percepts arise within specific brain sub-networks, the components of which are differentially engaged and disengaged depending on the timing of environmental signals.

show abstract

The organization of the connections between the cortex and the claustrum in the monkey

Cited by 163 publications

References 17 publications

Projections to layer VI of the posteromedial barrel field in the rat: a reappraisal of the role of corticothalamic pathways

Projections to layer VI of the posteromedial barrel field in the rat: a reappraisal of the role of corticothalamic pathways

Unimodal Responses Prevail within the Multisensory Claustrum

Multisensory integration for timing engages different brain networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About