Unidirectional monosynaptic connections from auditory areas to the primary visual cortex in the marmoset monkey

Majka, Piotr; Rosa, Marcello G. P.; Bai, Shuxiong; Chan, Jonathan M.; Huo, Bing-Xing; Jermakow, Natalia; Lin, Mo Jun; Takahashi, Yeonsook S.; Wolkowicz, Ianina H.; Worthy, Katrina H.; Rajan, Ramesh; Reser, David H.; Wójcik, Daniel K.; Mitra, Partha P.

doi:10.1007/s00429-018-1764-4

Cited by 37 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assignment of penetrations to these subdivisions of auditory cortex was based on converging evidence from electrophysiological mapping of responses to pure tones (cochleotopic organization) and histological examination of the electrode tracks. As reported previously in marmoset auditory cortex (Aitkin and Park, 1993; Nelken et al, 1999; Kajikawa et al, 2005; Bendor and Wang, 2008; Mesgarani et al, 2014), we found a cochleotopic low-to-high CF gradient from rostral to caudal A1 (Figure 1A) and a reversal of this gradient in the roughly 1 mm wide region of the caudal belt; penetrations further caudal to CM did not contain units responsive to either tones or vocalizations (Figure 1A), indicating this is likely not part of auditory cortex (Majka et al, 2018). Our results are in line with parcellation into core, belt and parabelt auditory cortical areas on the basis of the tuning characteristics of neurons in sites assigned to these subdivisions (Figures 1B,C) and latency of responses to tones and vocalizations (e.g., Figures 1D, 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Allocation of penetrations to these fields was done principally on the basis of the reliable changes in tonotopic sequence across auditory cortex (as also seen in other animals not part of this study), and on the physiological response characteristics (e.g., FRA bandwidth, response latency, response duration). Additionally, in some cases, comparisons of the histology of auditory cortex were made to our other work (Majka et al, 2018). To ensure we obtained good quality data for all fields, we recorded from no more than 3 fields in any animal.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sensitivity to Vocalization Pitch in the Caudal Auditory Cortex of the Marmoset: Comparison of Core and Belt Areas

Zhu

Allitt

Samuel

et al. 2019

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on anatomical connectivity and basic response characteristics, primate auditory cortex is divided into a central core surrounded by belt and parabelt regions. The encoding of pitch, a prototypical element of sound identity, has been studied in primary auditory cortex (A1) but little is known about how it is encoded and represented beyond A1. The caudal auditory belt and parabelt cortical fields process spatial information but also contain information on non-spatial aspects of sounds. In this study, we examined neuronal responses in these areas to pitch-varied marmoset vocalizations, to derive the consequent representation of pitch in these regions and the potential underlying mechanisms, to compare to the encoding and representation of pitch of the same sounds in A1. With respect to response patterns to the vocalizations, neurons in caudal medial belt (CM) showed similar short-latency and short-duration response patterns to A1, but caudal lateral belt (CL) neurons at the same hierarchical level and caudal parabelt (CPB) neurons at a higher hierarchical level showed delayed or much delayed response onset and prolonged response durations. With respect to encoding of pitch, neurons in all cortical fields showed sensitivity to variations in the vocalization pitch either through modulation of spike-count or of first spike-latency. The utility of the encoding mechanism differed between fields: pitch sensitivity was reliably represented by spike-count variations in A1 and CM, while first spike-latency variation was better for encoding pitch in CL and CPB. In summary, our data show that (a) the traditionally-defined belt area CM is functionally very similar to A1 with respect to the representation and encoding of complex naturalistic sounds, (b) the CL belt area, at the same hierarchical level as CM, and the CPB area, at a higher hierarchical level, have very different response patterns and appear to use different pitch-encoding mechanisms, and (c) caudal auditory fields, proposed to be specialized for encoding spatial location, can also contain robust representations of sound identity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to Vocalization Pitch in the Caudal Auditory Cortex of the Marmoset: Comparison of Core and Belt Areas

Zhu

Allitt

Samuel

et al. 2019

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We were able to combine subsets of the injections placed in this study with injections in previous studies, as well as data gathered in collaborating laboratories, to generate and test specific hypotheses, indicating the utility of the data gathered in the project (Lee et al, 2018; Majka et al, 2018). In addition, analysis of injection centers show proximity/overlap of injections from a previous data set from the Rosa laboratory for which 3D spatial information is available (Appendix 10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…This is discussed further in the next subsection. This approach of combining our project injections with data from other investigators has already led to collaborative publications (Huo et al, 2018; Majka et al, 2018).…”

Section: Mri Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

A high-throughput neurohistological pipeline for brain-wide mesoscale connectivity mapping of the common marmoset

Lin

Takahashi

Huo

et al. 2019

eLife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the connectivity architecture of entire vertebrate brains is a fundamental but difficult task. Here we present an integrated neuro-histological pipeline as well as a grid-based tracer injection strategy for systematic mesoscale connectivity mapping in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Individual brains are sectioned into ~1700 20 µm sections using the tape transfer technique, permitting high quality 3D reconstruction of a series of histochemical stains (Nissl, myelin) interleaved with tracer labeled sections. Systematic in-vivo MRI of the individual animals facilitates injection placement into reference-atlas defined anatomical compartments. Further, by combining the resulting 3D volumes, containing informative cytoarchitectonic markers, with in-vivo and ex-vivo MRI, and using an integrated computational pipeline, we are able to accurately map individual brains into a common reference atlas despite the significant individual variation. This approach will facilitate the systematic assembly of a mesoscale connectivity matrix together with unprecedented 3D reconstructions of brain-wide projection patterns in a primate brain.

show abstract

“…This finding is in line with previous observations in ferrets (Cantone et al, 2005;Dell et al, 2019), and primates (Kennedy and Bullier, 1985;Perkel et al, 1986;Barone et al, 1995) which reveal that the area immediately rostral to a given area supplies the majority of feedback. We did not observe any label in auditory cortex rostral to the Ssy sulcus as our injections may not have been peripheral enough (Falchier et al, 2002;Majka et al, 2019). We did not systematically investigate connections at different eccentricities so we cannot compare to other studies (Palmer and Rosa, 2006).…”

Section: Comparison With Feedback Circuits To Area 17 In the Ferret mentioning

confidence: 90%

Visual Corticocortical Inputs to Ferret Area 18

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual cortical areas in the adult mammalian brain are linked by a network of interareal feedforward and feedback circuits. We investigated the topography of feedback projections to ferret (Mustela putorius furo) area 18 from extrastriate areas 19, 21, and Ssy. Our objective was to characterize the anatomical organization of the extrastriate feedback pool to area 18. We also wished to determine if feedback projections to area 18 share similar features as feedback projections to area 17. We injected the tracer cholera toxin B subunit (CTb) into area 18 of adult ferrets to visualize the distribution and pattern of retrogradely labeled cells in extrastriate cortex. We find several similarities to the feedback projection to area 17: (i) Multiple visual cortical areas provide feedback to area 18: areas 19, 21, Ssy, and weaker inputs from posterior parietal and lateral temporal visual areas. Within each area a greater proportion of feedback projections arises from the infragranular than from the supragranular layers. (ii) The cortical area immediately rostral to area 18 provides the greatest proportion of total cortical feedback, and has the greatest peak density of cells providing feedback to area 18. (iii) The spacing (peak cell density and nearest neighbor distances) of cells in extrastriate cortex providing feedback to areas 17 and 18 are similar. However, peak density of feedback cells to area 18 is comparable in the supra-and infragranular layers, whereas peak density of feedback cells to area 17 is higher in the infragranular layers. Another prominent difference is that dorsal area 18 receives a cortical input that area 17 does not: from ventral cortex representing the upper visual field; this appears to be roughly 25% of the feedback input to area 18. Lastly, area 17 receives a greater proportion of cortical feedback from area 21 than from Ssy, whereas area 18 receives more feedback from Ssy than from area 21. While the organization of feedback projections from extrastriate cortex to areas 17 and 18 is broadly similar, the main difference in input topography might arise due to differences in visual field representations of the two areas.

show abstract

Unidirectional monosynaptic connections from auditory areas to the primary visual cortex in the marmoset monkey

Cited by 37 publications

References 107 publications

Sensitivity to Vocalization Pitch in the Caudal Auditory Cortex of the Marmoset: Comparison of Core and Belt Areas

Sensitivity to Vocalization Pitch in the Caudal Auditory Cortex of the Marmoset: Comparison of Core and Belt Areas

A high-throughput neurohistological pipeline for brain-wide mesoscale connectivity mapping of the common marmoset

Visual Corticocortical Inputs to Ferret Area 18

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About