Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, Queensland, 4072 Australia and , 1 Brain Science Institute, Laboratory for Cortical Organization and Systematics, RIKEN, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako-shi, Saitama, 351-0198, Japan
Guy Elston, Vision, Touch and Hearing Research Centre, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Queensland, 4072 Australia. Email: G.Elston{at}vthrc.uq.edu.au.
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Recent studies have revealed distinct variations in the pyramidal cell phenotype in different cortical areas (Lund et al., 1993; Elston et al., 1996
, 1999a
, b
, 2001
; Elston and Rosa, 1997
, 1998a
, b
, 2000
; Elston, 2000
; Jacobs et al., 2001
). These variations are not random, but are systematic; that is, cells become more branched and more spinous when comparing primary sensory with sensory association and executive cortical areas. The extent of these differences is impressive: layer III pyramidal cells in prefrontal cortex of the macaque monkey have been reported to be up to 16 times more spinous than those in V1 (Elston, 2000
). In addition, the extent of regional differences in cell structure is species dependent, being greater in human, for example, than in macaque and marmoset monkeys (Elston et al., 2001
).
In the present study we determined the morphology of pyramidal cells in macaque somatosensory and motor cortex to extend the database and to provide further information relevant to the underlying trends and mechanisms that result in phenotypic variation. We found systematic differences in the pyramidal cell phenotype between cortical areas 3b, 5 and 7b, as well as between areas 4 and 6. These results extend previous findings in visual cortex and provide further support for the hypothesis that pyramidal cell structure is specialized for particular functional requirements. In addition, these data provide a basis for future comparisons between homologous areas in other species.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Tissue was taken from the caudal bank of the central sulcus (Vogt and Vogts area 3b), the rostral bank of the central sulcus [Brodmanns area 4; corresponding to 4c of Preuss et al. (Preuss et al., 1997)], the exposed lateral portion of the precentral gyrus [Brodmanns area 6; corresponding to premotor area PMv of Strick (Strick, 1985
) or F4 of Matelli and colleagues (Matelli et al., 1985
, 1991
)], the rostral bank of the intra-parietal sulcus [Brodmanns area 5; corresponding to III of Preuss and Goldman-Rakic (Preuss and Goldman-Rakic, 1989
)] and the exposed rostral portion of the inferior parietal lobule (Vogt and Vogts area 7b) (Fig. 1
). Tissue was taken from the right hemisphere of both animals. Since cortical areal maps are still in some flux, we have presented our data according to the anatomical location of the cortical areas as the most neutral and general option. In particular, data are presented with respect to the central sulcus. Tissue sampled in all cortical areas was taken along a transect perpendicular to the central sulcus, to increase the likelihood that only cells which represent similar body parts were studied (Fig. 1
).
|
|
|
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Basal Dendritic Field Areas
Qualitative observation of pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas revealed differences in the appearance of their basal dendritic arbours related to arbour size, complexity of branching structure and spine density. To quantify differences in the size of the basal dendritic arbours, we determined their areas by drawing a polygon around the outermost distal tips of the dendrites and calculating the area contained within. These analyses confirmed that basal dendritic arbours of cells in area 3b were smaller (mean ± SEM, 49.15 x 103 ± 1.63 x 103 µm2) than those in area 5 (80.69 x 103 ± 1.71 x 103 µm2), which were smaller than those in area 7 (96.18 x 103 ± 2.65 x 103 µm2). In addition, cells in area 4 (74.39 x 103 ± 2.45 x 103 µm2) had smaller arbours than those in area 6 (90.33 x 103 ± 3.73 x 103 µm2) (Fig. 3A). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in the areas of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas [F(4) = 47.2, P < 0.001]. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 7 of 10 interareal comparisons were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4A
).
|
Branching patterns of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal neurons are shown in Figure 3B, which plots the results of Sholl analysis (based on concentric circles of increasing radii: 25 µm intervals). As can be seen from the figure, the branching pattern of the basal dendritic arbours of pyramidal neurons was measurably different in all cortical areas studied. The peak branching complexity (the maximum number of dendritic intersections per circle) for cells in area 3b (mean ± SEM, 24.5 ± 0.8) was less than that of cells in area 5 (32.5 ± 0.9), which was, in turn, less than that in area 7b (38.1 ± 1.2). Cells in area 4 had a smaller peak branching complexity (29.8 ± 0.9) than those in area 6 (35.2 ± 1.3). Comparison of areas under the curves revealed that cells in area 7 had ~20% more branches than those in area 5 and 120% more branches that those in 3b. In addition, cells in area 6 had ~25% more branches than those in area 4. Despite differences in the number of branches in the basal dendritic arbours, the peak dendritic complexity of cells in all cortical areas was located approximately one-third of the distance from the cell body to the distal tips of the dendrites. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differences (P < 0.001) in the branching patterns of pyramidal cells between the different areas [intercept, F(1) = 3056; cortical area, F(4) = 33.24].
Spine Densities of the Basal Dendrites
Visual observation revealed differences in the density of spines on the basal dendrites of pyramidal neurons in the different cortical areas. In order to quantify the differences, spines were sampled, per 10 mm dendritic segment, from the cell body to the distal tips of the dendrites. More than 23 000 individual spines were tallied. The results of these analyses are plotted in Fig. 3C, which shows the mean and standard deviation of spine density for 20 randomly selected, horizontally projecting basal dendrites of different cells in each cortical area. In all cases, spine density was zero in the proximal 10 µm of the basal dendrites, rose to a peak density at approximately one-third the distance between the soma and the distal tips of the dendrites, and decreased with further progression toward the distal tips. A two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA (cortical area x distance from soma x spine density), over the entire dendritic length, revealed a significant difference (P < 0.001) in the distribution of spines between cells in all cortical areas studied [intercept, F(1) = 3959; cortical area, F(4) = 45.7]. Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 7 of 10 between-area comparisons of spine density were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4C
).
The total number of dendritic spines in the basal dendritic arbour of the average pyramidal neuron in each area was calculated by combining data from the Sholl analyses with that of spine densities (Elston, 2001). The average neuron in area 3b had 2987 spines in its basal dendritic arbour. Similar calculations revealed that the average pyramidal cell in area 5 had 4689 spines in its basal dendritic arbour, compared with 6841 spines for neurons in area 7b. The average cell in area 4 contained 4568 spines, while that in area 6 had 8238 spines.
Somal Areas
Somata were drawn, in the plane tangential to the cortical layers, and plotted in Figure 3D. A repeated-measures ANOVA revealed significant differences in cell body size between neurons in the different cortical areas [F(4) = 25.89, P < 0.001]. Somata of cells in layer III of area 3b (mean ± SEM, 187.7 ± 5.03 µm2) were smaller than those in area 5 (247.28 ± 6.70 mm2), which were smaller than those in area 7 (292.05 ± 8.23 mm2). Somata of cells in layer III of area 4 (286.46 ± 9.30 mm2) were larger than those in area 6 (268.24 ± 8.34 mm2). Post hoc Scheffé tests revealed that 6 of 10 between-area comparisons of soma size were significantly different (P < 0.05; Fig. 4D
).
As can be seen from Figure 4, comparison of the degree of variation of the different anatomical variables tested here revealed that they are not necessarily correlated, but may vary independently of each other. In particular, cell body size does not necessarily reflect the size or branching patterns of the basal dendritic arbour, or the distribution of spines within the arbour (e.g. area 6).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Cortical Specialization and the Pyramidal Cell
The present data provide further evidence for principled trends underlying pyramidal cell structure and cortical function. While the effects of age, sex, hemisphere and rearing conditions (Scheibel et al., 1975; Nakamura et al., 1985
; Jacobs et al., 1993
, 1997
; Anderson and Rutledge, 1996
) have to be taken into account when comparing the present data with those from other studies, our results suggest that cells in polymodal sensory and motor association cortex of the macaque are considerably more spinous and more branched than their counterparts in primary areas. Furthermore, cells in polymodal sensory and motor association cortex are less spinous than their counterparts in macaque prefrontal cortex. Thus, data from macaque monkeys parallel trends reported in humans (Elston et al., 2001
; Jacobs et al., 2001
). The extent of the differences in macaque may not, however, be as great as those reported in man (Elston et al., 2001
) and further studies are required in other species to determine whether or not a similar pattern is seen in brains that have undergone different types of specialization.
Functional Implications of Phenotypic Variation of the Pyramidal Cell
Cellular Level
The present results suggest that arbours of pyramidal cells in different sensorimotor areas receive different numbers of excitatory inputs. This follows from the fact that each dendritic spine receives at least one asymmetrical (Colonnier, 1968; Jones, 1968
) glutamatergic (DeFelipe et al., 1988
; Kharazia et al., 1996
) synapse and, therefore, the number of putative excitatory inputs can be estimated from spine number. Furthermore, differences in dendritic length and spine number are likely to influence the number of inhibitory inputs received by these cells [for a discussion, see Elston et al. (Elston et al., 1999c
)], resulting in varying degrees of pre-integration inhibition in the arbours of cells in different cortical areas (Spratling and Johnson, 2001
). In addition, differences in the branching patterns have been reported to influence the degree to which processing may be compartmentalized within the arbours (Koch et al., 1982
, 1983
) and the functional capacity of neurons (Poirazi and Mel, 2001
).
Systems Levels
Putative differences in the numbers of excitatory inputs received by supragranular pyramidal cells in the different cortical areas may determine convergence and divergence to individual cells, thus influencing their receptive field properties. For example, the receptive field size of cells in visual cortex is correlated with the size of their basal dendritic arbours (Colonnier, 1964; Gilbert and Wiesel, 1979
; Elston and Rosa, 1998a
,b
; Elston et al., 1999b
). In addition, the sampling profiles of neurons may be influenced by the size of their arbours (Lund et al., 1993
; Malach, 1994
). For example, the size of basal dendritic arbours of supragranular pyramidal cells in several visual areas is correlated with the size of intrinsic horizontally projecting axon patches (Lund et al., 1993
; Elston and Rosa, 1998a
,b
). As previously suggested (Malach, 1994
), such a correlation would result in a maximal sampling diversity. Further experiments are required to determine whether or not a similar correlation exists in sensori-motor cortex, which is also characterized by an intrinsic horizontal latticework of connections, or patches (Juliano et al., 1990
; Huntley and Jones, 1991
; Lund et al., 1993
).
Two other examples come to mind regarding how cell structure might influence cortical function. In prefrontal cells, the long post-stimulus spiking activity, which is thought to underpin their role in memory, rule learning and reasoning (Fuster and Alexander, 1971; Kubota and Niki, 1971
; Fuster, 1973
; Wallis et al., 2001
), may result from a high degree of interconnectedness and the integration of large numbers of inputs (Soloway et al., 2002
). In addition, the work of Murayama and colleagues (Murayama et al., 1997
) can be interpreted as evidence that interareal differences in intrinsic connectivity influence functional architecture. Namely, 40100 Hz stimulation of layers 2/3 results in long-term potentiation (LTP) in temporal lobe cortex, but long-term depression (LTD) in V1. These different response characteristics might, in part, result from differences in the input configuration and interactions of the intrinsic excitatory connections to pyramidal cells (McGuire et al., 1991
; Tanigawa et al., 1998
).
Processing Pathways
Systematic differences in the phenotype of supragranular pyramidal neurons correlate, to an extent, with the proposed organization of cortical areas into hierarchies (Mishkin, 1979; Maunsell and van Essen, 1983
; Pons et al., 1987
, 1992
; Felleman and van Essen, 1991
; Gross et al., 1993
; Graziano and Gross, 1997
). The present results in somatosensory cortex show that the size of cells, their branching complexity and the total number of spines within their basal dendritic arbour increase through areas 3b, 5 and 7b, which reportedly form successive hierarchical levels in somatosensory processing (Friedman, 1983
; Friedman et al., 1986
; Felleman and van Essen, 1991
), but see Neal et al. (Neal et al., 1987
) and Andersen et al. (Andersen et al., 1990
). However, our results in motor areas 4 and 6 conform less well to this interpretation. That is, motor effector cells in area 4, which is generally considered to be the end of a cortical motor decisionexecution pathway, are smaller and less branched than those in area 6 (Jacobs et al., 2001
), which is usually placed before area 4 in this pathway (Jones, 1986
; Geyer et al., 2000
). Furthermore, comparison of infragranular pyramidal cells reveals a systematic decrease in the size of, number of branches in and number of spines in their basal dendritic arbours through areas STP, TE and TEO (Elston and Rosa, 2000
). Moreover, cells in prefrontal cortex, which modulate sensory processing (Vidyasagar, 1996
; Buchel and Friston, 1997
; Ito and Gilbert, 1999
; Mehta et al., 2000
), are larger, more branched and considerably more spinous than their target cells (Elston, 2000
; Jacobs et al., 2001
; Soloway et al., 2002
).
It is also clear that much remains to be determined about the anatomical and functional relationships between sensori-motor areas, particularly in terms of the functional weighting of connections for specific tasks (Jones, 1986; Paulesu et al., 1997
). The results of recent imaging studies, for example, suggest that individual areas do not necessarily function in a successive temporal (or hierarchical) sequence, but, rather, many different cortical areas may be simultaneously involved in any given task (Kaas, 1990
; Calvert, 2001
). Thus, differences in pyramidal cell phenotype may be influenced by factors such as regional variation in gene expression during development (Rakic, 1988
; Huttenlocher and Dabholkar, 1997
; Donoghue and Rakic, 1999
; Bishop et al., 2000
; Fukuchi-Shimogori and Grove, 2001
; Tochitani et al., 2001
) and specialization during evolution (Cajal, 1894
; Elston et al., 2001
). The implications of interareal variation in pyramidal cell structure reported here will require objective analyses of cell structure (Elston and Jelinek, 2001
; Jelinek and Elston, 2001
) and quantification of patterns of connectivity between areas (Young, 1993
; Jouve et al., 1998
) across a number of species.
Cell Soma Size and Dendritic Arbour Structure: is there a Correlation?
The present results provide further evidence that cell soma size is not necessarily a reliable indicator of dendritic arbour structure. For example, there was only 50% concordance between the pair-wise statistical comparisons between cortical areas for branching pattern and somal size (Fig. 4). More specifically, we found no significant difference in the soma size of neurons between areas 6 and 5, 6 and 7, 4 and 6 or 4 and 7; but cells in area 4 had significantly smaller dendritic arbours than those in areas 6 and 7, and cells in area 7 had significantly more dendritic branches than those in areas 4 and 6 (Fig. 4
). In addition, even when we found no significant difference in the size of the somata of cells in different cortical areas, we found marked differences in the number of spines contained within their basal arbours. For example, cells in area 6 contain at least 75% more spines than those in areas 4 and 5, but their somata were not significantly different in size (Elston et al., 1999b
). Reverse comparisons also revealed a lack of consistency between cell body size and arbour structure. For example, soma size was significantly different between cells in areas 4 and 5, but there was no significant difference in their dendritic arbour size. Various groups have now reported a lack of correlation between cell body size of cortical neurons and the structure of their arbours rat somatosensory cortex (Larkman, 1991
), cat visual cortex (Matsubara et al., 1996
), monkey visual cortex (Elston et al., 1999b
) suggesting widespread variance between these parameters.
Conclusions
By injecting neurons in different cortical areas we have demonstrated systematic variation in the pyramidal cell structure in sensorimotor cortex of the macaque monkey. Dendritic arbour size, number of branch points, spine density and soma size may vary independently of each other. As supragranular pyramidal cells form extensive intrinsic and interareal cortical projections, regional variation of the pyramidal cell phenotype is likely to have profound implications for areal and systems function. These findings are in direct contrast with the belief that all cortical areas are built of the same neural components linked in similar ways. Instead, the present results support the thesis that the pyramidal cell and the circuits it forms are modified in parallel with particular functional requirements. Further studies are required to determine the extent of regional variation of pyramidal cell apical dendrites, as well as interneuronal variation.
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Anderson B, Rutledge V (1996) Age and hemisphere effects on dendrite structure. Brain 119:19831990.[Abstract]
Bishop K, Goudreau G, OLeary DDM (2000) Emx2 and Pax6 regulate identity in the mammalian neocortex. Science 288:344349.
Buchel C, Friston KJ, (1997) Modulation of connectivity in visual pathways by attention: cortical interactions evaluated with structural equation modelling and fMRI. Cereb Cortex 7:768778.[Abstract]
Buhl EH, Schlote W (1987) Intracellular Lucifer yellow staining and electronmicroscopy of neurons in slices of fixed epitumourous human cortical tissue. Acta Neuropathol 75:140146.[ISI][Medline]
Cajal SR (1894) Estructura intima de los centros nerviosos. Rev Ciencias Med 20:145160.
Calvert GA (2001) Crossmodal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb Cortex 11:11101123.
Colonnier ML (1964) The tangential organization of the cortex. J Anat 98:327344.[ISI]
Colonnier M (1968) Synaptic patterns on different cell types in the different laminae of the cat visual cortex. Brain Res 9:268287.[Medline]
Creutzfeldt OD (1977) Generality of the functional structure of the neocortex. Naturwissenschaften 64:507517.[ISI][Medline]
DeFelipe J, Fariñas I (1992) The pyramidal neuron of the cerebral cortex: morphological and chemical characteristics of the synaptic inputs. Prog Neurobiol 39:563607.[ISI][Medline]
DeFelipe J, Conti F, Van Eyck SL, Manzoni T (1988) Demonstration of glutamate-positive axon terminals forming asymmetric synapses in cat neocortex. Brain Res 455:162165.[ISI][Medline]
DeFelipe J, del Río MR, González-Albo MC, Elston GN (1999) Distribution and patterns of connectivity of interneurons containing calbindin, calretinin and parvalbumin in visual areas of the occipital and temporal lobes of the macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 412:515526.[ISI][Medline]
Donoghue MJ, Rakic P (1999) Molecular evidence for the early specification of presumptive domains in the embryonic primate cerebral cortex. J Neurosci 19:59675979.
Douglas RJ, Martin KAC, Whitteridge D (1989) A canonical microcircuit for neocortex. Neural Comp 1:480488.
Eayrs JT, Goodhead B (1959) Postnatal development of the cerebral cortex in the rat. J Anat 93:385402.[ISI]
Elston GN (2000) Pyramidal cells of the frontal lobe: all the more spinous to think with. J Neurosci 20:RC95(14).
Elston GN (2001) Interlaminar differences in the pyramidal cell pheno-type in cortical areas 7m and STP (the superior temporal polysensory area) of the macaque monkey. Exp Brain Res 138:141152.[ISI][Medline]
Elston GN, Jelinek HF (2001) Dendritic branching patterns of pyramidal cells in the visual cortex of the New World marmoset monkey, with comparative notes on the Old World macaque monkey. Fractals 9:297303.[ISI]
Elston GN, Rosa MGP (1997) The occipitoparietal pathway of the macaque monkey: comparison of pyramidal cell morphology in layer III of functionally related cortical visual areas. Cereb Cortex 7:432452.[Abstract]
Elston GN, Rosa MGP (1998a) Morphological variation of layer III pyramidal neurons in the occipitotemporal pathway of the macaque monkey visual cortex. Cereb Cortex 8:278294.[Abstract]
Elston GN, Rosa MGP (1998b) Complex dendritic fields of pyramidal cells in the frontal eye field of the macaque monkey: comparison with parietal areas 7a and LIP. Neuroreport 9:127131.[ISI][Medline]
Elston GN, Rosa MGP (2000) Pyramidal cells, patches, and cortical columns: a comparative study of infragranular neurons in TEO, TE, and the superior temporal polysensory area of the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 20:RC117(15).[Medline]
Elston G, Rosa MGP, Calford MB (1996) Comparison of dendritic fields of layer III pyramidal neurons in striate and extrastriate visual areas of the marmoset: a Lucifer Yellow intracellular injection study. Cereb Cortex 6:807813.[Abstract]
Elston GN, Pow DV, Calford MB (1997) Neuronal composition and morphology in layer IV of two vibrissal barrel subfields of rat cortex. Cereb Cortex 7:422431.[Abstract]
Elston GN, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP (1999a) Cortical integration in the visual system of the macaque monkey: large scale morphological differences of pyramidal neurones in the occipital, parietal and temporal lobes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 266:13671374.[ISI][Medline]
Elston GN, Tweedale R, Rosa MGP (1999b) Cellular heterogeneity in cerebral cortex. A study of the morphology of pyramidal neurones in visual areas of the marmoset monkey. J Comp Neurol 415:3351.[ISI][Medline]
Elston GN, DeFelipe J, Arellano JI, González-Albo MC, Rosa MGP (1999c) Variation in the spatial relationship between parvalbumin immuno-reactive interneurones and pyramidal neurones in rat somatosensory cortex. Neuroreport 10:29752979.[ISI][Medline]
Elston GN, Benavides-Piccione R, DeFelipe J (2001) The pyramidal cell in cognition: a comparative study in human and monkey. J Neurosci 21:RC163(15).
Feldman ML, Peters A (1979) A technique for estimating total spine numbers on Golgi-impregnated dendrites. J Comp Neurol 188: 527542.[ISI][Medline]
Felleman DJ, Van Essen DC (1991) Distributed hierarchical processing in primate cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 1:147.[Abstract]
Friedman DP (1983) Laminar patterns of termination of corticocortical afferents in the somatosensory system. Brain Res 273:147151.[ISI][Medline]
Friedman DP, Murray EA, ONeill JB, Mishkin M (1986) Cortical connections of the somatosensory fields of the lateral sulcus of macaques: evidence for a corticolimbic pathway for touch. J Comp Neurol 252:323347.[ISI][Medline]
Fukuchi-Shimogori T, Grove EA (2001) Neocortex patterning by secreted signaling molecule FGF8. Science 294:10711074.
Fuster JM (1973) Unit activity in prefrontal cortex during delayed-response performance: neuronal correlates of transient memory. J Neurophysiol 36:6178.
Fuster JM, Alexander GE (1971) Neuron activity related to short-term memory. Science 173:652654.[ISI][Medline]
Geyer S, Matelli M, Luppino G, Zilles K (2000) Functional neuroanatomy of the primate isocortical motor system. Anat Embryol 202:443474.[ISI][Medline]
Gilbert CD, Wiesel TN (1979) Morphology and intracortical projections of functionally characterized neurones in the cat visual cortex. Nature 280:120125.[ISI][Medline]
Gross CG, Rodman HR, Gochin PM, Colombo MW (1993) Inferior temporal cortex as a pattern recognition device. In: Computational learning and recognition: Proceedings of the 3rd NEC Research Symposium (Baum E, ed.), pp. 4473. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
Graziano MSA, Gross CG (1997) Vision, movement, and the monkey brain. In: The association cortex, structure and function (Sakata H, Mikami A, Fuster J, eds), pp. 219232. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Hendry SHC, Calkins DJ (1998) Neuronal chemistry and functional organization in the primate visual system. Trends Neurosci 21:344349.[ISI][Medline]
Hof PR, Morrison JH (1995) Neurofilament protein defines regional patterns of cortical organization in the macaque monkey visual system: a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis. J Comp Neurol 352:161186.[ISI][Medline]
Huntley GW, Jones EG (1991) Relationship of intrinsic connections to forelimb movement representations in monkey motor cortex: a correlative anatomic and physiological study. J Neurophysiol 66:390413.
Huttenlocher PR, Dabholkar AS (1997) Regional differences in synaptogenesis in human cerebral cortex. J Comp Neurol 387:167178.[ISI][Medline]
Ito M, Gilbert CD, (1999) Attention modulates contextual influences in the primary visual cortex of alert monkeys. Neuron 22:593604.[ISI][Medline]
Jacobs B, Schall M, Schiebel AB (1993) A quantitative analyses of Wernickes area in humans. II. Gender, hemispheric and environmental factors. J Comp Neurol 327:97111.[ISI][Medline]
Jacobs B, Larsen-Driscoll L, Schall M (1997) Lifespan dendritic and spine changes in areas 10 and 18 of human cortex: a quantitative Golgi study. J Comp Neurol 386:661680.[ISI][Medline]
Jacobs B, Schall M, Prather M, Kapler L, Driscoll L, Baca S, Jacobs J, Ford K, Wainwright M, Treml M (2001) Regional dendritic and spine variation in human cerebral cortex: a quantitative study. Cereb Cortex 11:558571.
Jelinek HF, Elston GN (2001) Pyramidal neurones in macaque visual cortex: interareal phenotypic variation of dendritic branching patterns. Fractals 9:287296.[ISI]
Jones EG (1968) An electron microscopic study of the terminations of afferent fiber systems onto the somatic sensory cortex of the cat. J Anat 103:595597.[ISI]
Jones EG (1986) Connectivity of the primate sensory-motor cortex. In: Cerebral cortex vol. 5, sensory motor areas and aspects of cortical connectivity (Peters A, Jones EG, eds), pp. 113182. New York: Plenum.
Jones EG, Powell TPS (1969) Morphological variations in the dendritic spines of the neocortex. J Cell Sci 5:509529.[ISI][Medline]
Jouve B, Rosenstiehl P, Imbert M. (1998) A mathematical approach to the connectivity between the cortical visual areas of the macaque monkey. Cereb Cortex 8:2839.[Abstract]
Juliano SL, Friedman DP, Eslin DE (1990) Corticocortical connections predict patches of stimulus-evoked metabolic activity in monkey somatosensory cortex. J Comp Neurol 298:2339.[ISI][Medline]
Kaas JH (1990) The somatosensory system. In: The human nervous system (Paxinos G, ed.), pp. 813844. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kaas JH, Pons TP (1988) The somatosensory system of primates. In: Comparative primate biology (Steklis HP, ed.), pp. 421468. New York: Alan R. Liss.
Kharazia VN, Phend KD, Rustioni A, Weinberg RJ (1996) EM colocalization of AMPA and NMDA receptor subunits at synapses in rat cerebral cortex. Neurosci Lett 210:3740.[ISI][Medline]
Koch C, Poggio T, Torre V (1982) Retinal ganglion cells: a functional interpretation of dendritic morphology. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 298:227264.[ISI][Medline]
Koch C, Poggio T, Torre V (1983) Nonlinear interactions in a dendritic tree: localization, timing and role in information processing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:27992802.[Abstract]
Kubota K, Niki H (1971) Prefrontal cortical unit activity and delayed alternation performance in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 34:337347.
Larkman AU (1991) Dendritic morphology of pyramidal neurones in the visual cortex of the rat: III. Spine distributions. J Comp Neurol 306:332343.[ISI][Medline]
Lund JS, Yoshioka T, Levitt JB (1993) Comparison of intrinsic connectivity in different areas of macaque monkey cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 3:148162.[Abstract]
McGuire BA, Gilbert CD, Rivlin PK, Wiesel TN (1991) Targets of horizontal connections in macaque primary visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 305:370392.[ISI][Medline]
Malach R (1994) Cortical columns as devices for maximizing neuronal diversity. Trends Neurosci 17:101104.[ISI][Medline]
Matelli M, Luppino G, Rizzolatti G (1985) Patterns of cytochrome oxidase activity in the frontal agranular cortex of the macaque monkey. Behav Brain Res 18:125136.[ISI][Medline]
Matelli M, Luppino G, Rizzolatti G (1991) Architecture of superior and mesial area 6 and the adjacent cingulate cortex in the macaque monkey. J Comp Neurol 311:445462.[ISI][Medline]
Matsubara JA, Chase R, Thejomayen M (1996) Comparative morphology of three types of projection-identified pyramidal neurons in the superficial layers of cat visual cortex. J Comp Neurol 366:93108.[ISI][Medline]
Maunsell JHR, Van Essen DC (1983) The connections of the middle temporal visual area (MT) and their relationship to a cortical hierarchy in the macaque monkey. J Neurosci 3:25632586.[Abstract]
Mehta AD, Ulbert I, Schroeder CE, (2000) Intermodal selective attention in monkeys. I: distribution and timing of effects across visual areas. Cereb Cortex 10:343358.
Mishkin M (1979) Analagous neural models for tactual and visual learning. Neuropsychologia 17:139149.[ISI][Medline]
Murayama Y, Fujita I, Kato M (1997) Contrasting forms of synaptic plasticity in monkey inferotemporal and primary visual cortices. Neuroreport 8:15031508.[ISI][Medline]
Nakamura S, Akiguchi I, Kameyama M, Mizuno N (1985) Age-related changes of pyramidal cell basal dendrites in layers III and V of human motor cortex: a quantitative Golgi study. Acta Neuropathol 65: 281284.[ISI][Medline]
Neal JW, Pearson RCA, Powell TPS (1987) The corticocortical connections of area 7b, PF in the parietal lobe of the monkey. Brain Res 419:341346.[ISI][Medline]
Paulesu E, Frackowiak RSJ, Bottini G (1997) Maps of somatosensory systems. In: Human brain function (Frackowiak RSJ, Friston KJ, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Mazziotta JC, eds), pp. 183242. London: Academic Press.
Poirazi P, Mel B (2001) Impact of active dendrites and structural plasticity on the storage capacity of neural tissue. Neuron 29:779796.[ISI][Medline]
Pons TP, Garraghty PE, Friedman DP, Mishkin M (1987) Physiological evidence for serial processing in somatosensory cortex. Science 237:417420.[ISI][Medline]
Pons TP, Garraghty PE, Mishkin M (1992) Serial and parallel processing of tactual information in somatosensory cortex of rhesus monkeys. J Neurophysiol 68:518527.
Preuss TM, Goldman-Rakic PS (1989) Connections of the ventral granular frontal cortex of macaques with perisylvian premotor and somato-sensory areas: anatomical evidence for somatic representation in primate frontal association cortex. J Comp Neurol 282:293316.[ISI][Medline]
Preuss TM, Stepniewska I, Jain N, Kaas JH (1997) Multiple divisions of macaque precentral motor cortex identified with neurofilament antibody SMI-32. Brain Res 767:148153.[ISI][Medline]
Rakic P (1988) Specification of cerebral cortical areas. Science 241:170176.[ISI][Medline]
Rockel AJ, Hiorns RW, Powell TPS (1980) The basic uniformity in structure of the neocortex. Brain 103:221244.[ISI][Medline]
Scheibel ME, Lindsay RD, Tomiyasu U, Scheibel AB (1975) Progressive dendritic changes in the ageing human cortex. Exp Neurol 47: 392403.[ISI][Medline]
Sholl DA (1953) Dendritic organization in the neurons of the visual and motor cortices of the cat. J Anat 87:387406.[ISI][Medline]
Soloway AS, Pucak ML, Melchitzky DS, Lewis DA (2002) Dendritic morphology of callosal and ipsilateral projection neurons in monkey prefrontal cortex. Neuroscience 109:461471.[ISI][Medline]
Spratling MW, Johnson MH (2001) Dendritic inhibition enhances neural coding properties. Cereb Cortex 11:11441149.
Strick PL (1985) How do the basal ganglia and cerebellum gain access to the cortical motor areas? Behav Brain Res 18:107124.[ISI][Medline]
Szentagothai J (1978) The neuron network of the cerebral cortex: a functional interpretation. Proc R Soc Lond 201:219248.[ISI][Medline]
Tanigawa H, Fujita I, Kato M, Ojima H (1998) Distribution, morphology, and -aminobutyric acid immunoreactivity of horizontally projecting neurons in the macaque inferior temporal cortex. J Comp Neurol 401:129143.[ISI][Medline]
Tochitani S, Liang F, Watakabe A, Hashikawa T, Yamamori T (2001) The occ1 gene is preferentially expressed in the primary visual cortex in an activity-dependent manner: a pattern of gene expression related to the cytoarchitectonic area in adult macaque neocortex. Eur J Neurosci 13:297307.[ISI][Medline]
Vidyasagar TR (1996) Basic information processing and higher cognition: does the mammalian cerebral cortex deal with them at different hierarchical levels? Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 23:908912.[ISI][Medline]
Wallis JD, Andersen KC, Miller EK (2001) Single neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules. Nature 411:953956.[ISI][Medline]
Young MP (1993) The organization of neural systems in the primate cerebral cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B 252:113118.