Many monkeys adopt abstract response strategies as they learn to map visual symbols to responses by trial and error. According to the repeat-stay strategy, if a symbol repeats from a previous, successful trial, the monkeys should stay with their most recent response choice. According to the change-shift strategy, if the symbol changes, the monkeys should shift to a different choice. We recorded the activity of prefrontal cortex neurons while monkeys chose responses according to these two strategies. Many neurons had activity selective for the strategy used. In a subsequent block of trials, the monkeys learned fixed stimulus-response mappings with the same stimuli. Some neurons had activity selective for choosing responses based on fixed mappings, others for choosing based on abstract strategies. These findings indicate that the prefrontal cortex contributes to the implementation of the abstract response strategies that monkeys use during trial-and-error learning.

The somatotopic organization of the supplementary motor area (SMA) is commonly held to consist of a rostrocaudal sequence of orofacial, forelimb, and hindlimb representations. Recently, however, this somatotopy has been questioned. Studies of regional cerebral blood flow in humans and the movements evoked by intracortical electrical stimulation in cynomolgus monkeys have been unable to reveal evidence of distinct orofacial, forelimb, and hindlimb representations rostrocaudally situated along the medial cortex of the hemisphere. Partly on the basis of those results, it has been suggested that the SMA functions as a nontopographically organized "higher-order" motor center. The present study reexamines SMA organization by observing stimulation-evoked movements. The medial frontal cortex of 2 rhesus monkeys was mapped using a modified intracortical microstimulation technique. We observed a forelimb representation mainly on the medial surface of the hemisphere in both animals. Rostral or rostrolateral to the forelimb representation, depending on the individual, we evoked orofacial movements (including eye movements). Hindlimb movements were evoked from tissue overlapping, but largely caudal to, the forelimb representation. Thus, we conclude that there is a clear rostrocaudal progression of orofacial, forelimb, and hindlimb movement representations in the SMA.

SUMMARY We examined the contribution of the amygdala to value signals within orbital (OFC) and medial (MFC) prefrontal cortex. On each trial, monkeys chose between two stimuli that were associated with different quantities of reward. In intact monkeys, as expected, neurons in both OFC and MFC signaled the reward quantity associated with stimuli. Contrasted with MFC, OFC contained a larger proportion of neurons encoding reward quantity and did so with faster response latencies. Removing the amygdala eliminated these differences, mainly by decreasing value coding in OFC. Similar decreases occurred in OFC immediately before and after reward delivery. Although the amygdala projects to both OFC and MFC, these findings show that it has its greatest influence over reward-value coding in OFC. Importantly, amygdala lesions did not abolish value coding in OFC, which shows that OFC’s representations of the value of objects, choices and outcomes depends, in large part, on other sources.

No abstract

We reinvestigated the organization of the premotor cortex (PM) using intracortical microstimulation. Movements of forelimb, hindlimb, and orofacial structures were evoked from broad regions of PM that appeared to be contiguous with other motor areas. There were two principal findings: (1) the somatotopy of PM lies roughly parallel to that of the primary motor cortex (MI). Forelimb movements were evoked from sites deep in the caudal bank of the arcuate sulcus and throughout the adjacent cortex bounded by a face representation (laterally) and a hindlimb representation (medially and caudally); (2) unlike the MI, the PM forelimb representation overlaps significantly with its own face representation. PM hindlimb movement sites overlap only slightly with PM forelimb sites, in a manner similar to the MI. There was no obvious boundary between PM, MI, or supplementary motor area hindlimb representations. The present findings are discussed in relation to recently identified subdivisions of the PM.