Parahippocampal and retrosplenial connections of rat posterior parietal cortex

Olsen, Grethe M.; Ohara, Shinya; Iijima, Toshio; Witter, Menno P.

doi:10.1002/hipo.22701

Cited by 58 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(235 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, considerable portions of the mouse PPC indeed receive input from V1, and its additional connections with auditory and somatosensory areas (Zingg et al, 2014) are fully consistent with a role in multisensory processing (Olcese et al, 2013;Raposo et al, 2014). The parietal connections with frontal cortex likely support a role in elaborating movement, whereas connections with retrosplenial cortex and the dorsal presubiculum (Zingg et al, 2014;Olsen et al, 2017) likely contribute to navigational functions (Whitlock et al, 2008;Save & Poucet, 2009) and, possibly, transformations from first-person to third-person reference frames (Byrne et al, 2007;Alexander & Nitz, 2015). The general topological relationship of PPC to these extrinsic systems has been 1 6 described to various extents across species, including rats (Kolb & Walkey, 1987), cats (Olson & Lawler, 1987), ferrets (Manger et al, 2002), galagos , shrews (Remple et al, 2006), new world (Gharbawie et al, 2011) and old world monkeys (Cavada & Goldman-Rakic, 1989), and humans .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Similar to the rat, the mouse PPC lies between primary somatosensory and visual cortices, spanning approximately 600µm anterior-to-posterior, and has distinguishable medial (mPPC), lateral (lPPC) and posterior (PtP) divisions (Paxinos & Watson, 2013;Olsen & Witter 2017). To define precisely the boundaries between PPC and neighboring cortical regions, and to discern parietal sub-areas, we examined laminar architecture using Nissl staining, and chemoarchitectonic patterns using immunostaining against PV and M2AChRs.…”

Section: Architectural Features Of Ppc and Neighboring Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Architecture and organization of mouse posterior parietal cortex relative to extrastriate areas

Hovde

Gianatti

Whitlock

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is a multifaceted region of cortex, contributing to several cognitive processes including sensorimotor integration and spatial navigation.Although recent years have seen a considerable rise in the use of rodents, particularly mice, to investigate PPC and related networks, a coherent anatomical definition of PPC in the mouse is still lacking. To address this, we delineated the mouse PPC using cytoand chemoarchitectural markers from Nissl-, parvalbumin-and muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M2-staining. Additionally, we performed bilateral triple anterograde tracer injections in primary visual cortex (V1) and prepared flattened tangential sections from one hemisphere and coronal sections from the other, allowing us to co-register the cytoarchitectural features of PPC with V1 projections. In charting the location of extrastriate areas and the architectural features of PPC in the context of each other, we reconcile different, widely used conventions for demarcating PPC in the mouse.Furthermore, triple anterograde tracer injections in PPC showed strong projections to associative thalamic nuclei as well as higher visual areas, orbitofrontal, cingulate and secondary motor cortices. Retrograde circuit mapping with rabies virus further showed that all cortical connections were reciprocal. These combined approaches provide a coherent definition of mouse PPC that incorporates laminar architecture, extrastriate projections, thalamic, and cortico-cortical connections.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Architectural Features Of Ppc and Neighboring Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Architecture and organization of mouse posterior parietal cortex relative to extrastriate areas

Hovde

Gianatti

Whitlock

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, the orbitofrontal and insular projections to LEC mainly terminate anteriorly, and close to the rhinal fissure. Parietal cortex projects moderately to LEC and MEC, terminating close to the rhinal fissure, preferentially in layers I and V (Olsen et al, 2017). Superficial layers of MEC receive inputs from the orbitofrontal cortex, but only from the ventral part (Kondo and Witter, 2014), postrhinal cortex (Koganezawa et al, 2015) and pre- and parasubiculum (Caballero-Bleda and Witter, 1993).…”

Section: Connectivity Of the Two Entorhinal Subdivisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This however remains to be established, but the possibility points to a potentially relevant role for layer V neurons as integrators of entorhinal inputs, since they also are the recipients of other major cortical inputs distributing to layer V. These include inputs from infralimbic and prelimbic cortex, apparently innervating LEC and MEC almost equally dense. LEC layer V receives a denser input from anterior cingulate cortex, whereas the retrosplenial innervation almost exclusively distributes to MEC layer V (Wyss and Van Groen, 1992; Vertes, 2004; Jones and Witter, 2007), which also receives a weak to moderate input from visual cortex (Kerr et al, 2007; Olsen et al, 2017). …”

Section: Connectivity Of the Two Entorhinal Subdivisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Architecture of the Entorhinal Cortex A Review of Entorhinal Anatomy in Rodents with Some Comparative Notes

Witter

Doan

Jacobsen

et al. 2017

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

Self Cite

303

337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The entorhinal cortex (EC) is the major input and output structure of the hippocampal formation, forming the nodal point in cortico-hippocampal circuits. Different division schemes including two or many more subdivisions have been proposed, but here we will argue that subdividing EC into two components, the lateral EC (LEC) and medial EC (MEC) might suffice to describe the functional architecture of EC. This subdivision then leads to an anatomical interpretation of the different phenotypes of LEC and MEC. First, we will briefly summarize the cytoarchitectonic differences and differences in hippocampal projection patterns on which the subdivision between LEC and MEC traditionally is based and provide a short comparative perspective. Second, we focus on main differences in cortical connectivity, leading to the conclusion that the apparent differences may well correlate with the functional differences. Cortical connectivity of MEC is features interactions with areas such as the presubiculum, parasubiculum, retrosplenial cortex (RSC) and postrhinal cortex, all areas that are considered to belong to the “spatial processing domain” of the cortex. In contrast, LEC is strongly connected with olfactory areas, insular, medial- and orbitofrontal areas and perirhinal cortex. These areas are likely more involved in processing of object information, attention and motivation. Third, we will compare the intrinsic networks involving principal- and inter-neurons in LEC and MEC. Together, these observations suggest that the different phenotypes of both EC subdivisions likely depend on the combination of intrinsic organization and specific sets of inputs. We further suggest a reappraisal of the notion of EC as a layered input-output structure for the hippocampal formation.

show abstract

“…Specific features 3 of cortico-hippocampal connectivity point to retrosplenial and posterior parietal cortex as 4 intermediaries in this encoding process. Retrosplenial (RSP) and posterior parietal (PPC) 5 cortices are interconnected with hippocampus, subiculum, and perirhinal, postrhinal, and 6 entorhinal cortices [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] . These two regions contain neurons representing information in multiple 7 egocentric and allocentric reference frames 9,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and boast dense projections to secondary 8 motor cortex (M2) [34][35][36] .…”

Section: Introduction 17mentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary Motor Cortex Transforms Spatial Information into Planned Action During Navigation

Montgomery

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractFluid navigation requires constant updating of planned movements to adapt to evolving obstacles and goals. A neural substrate for navigation demands spatial and environmental information and the ability to effect actions through efferents. Secondary motor cortex is a prime candidate for this role given its interconnectivity with association cortices that encode spatial relationships and its projection to primary motor cortex. Here we report that secondary motor cortex neurons robustly encode both planned and current left/right turning actions across multiple turn locations in a multi-route navigational task. Comparisons within a common statistical framework reveal that secondary motor cortex neurons differentiate contextual factors including environmental position, route, action sequence, orientation, and choice availability. Despite significant modulation by context, action planning and execution are the dominant output signals of secondary motor cortex neurons. These results identify secondary motor cortex as a structure integrating environmental context toward the updating of planned movements.

show abstract

Parahippocampal and retrosplenial connections of rat posterior parietal cortex

Cited by 58 publications

References 105 publications

Architecture and organization of mouse posterior parietal cortex relative to extrastriate areas

Architecture and organization of mouse posterior parietal cortex relative to extrastriate areas

Architecture of the Entorhinal Cortex A Review of Entorhinal Anatomy in Rodents with Some Comparative Notes

Secondary Motor Cortex Transforms Spatial Information into Planned Action During Navigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About