Interactions within and between parallel parietal-frontal networks involved in complex motor behaviors in prosimian galagos and a squirrel monkey

Reversible deactivation of motor cortex reveals that areas in parietal cortex are differentially dependent on motor cortex for the generation of movement

Primates are characterized by specializations for manual manipulation, including expansion of posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and, in Catarrhines, evolution of a dexterous hand and opposable thumb. Previous studies examined functional interactions between motor cortex and PPC in New World monkeys and galagos, by inactivating M1 and evoking movements from PPC. These studies found that portions of PPC depend on M1 to generate movements. We now add a species that more closely resembles humans in hand morphology and PPC: macaques. Inactivating portions of M1 resulted in all evoked movements being reduced (28%) or completely abolished (72%) at the PPC sites tested (in areas 5L, PF, and PFG). Anterior parietal area 2 was similarly affected (26% reduced and 74% abolished) and area 1 was the least affected (12% no effect, 54% reduced, and 34% abolished). Unlike previous studies in New World monkeys and galagos, interactions between both nonanalogous (heterotopic) and analogous (homotopic) M1 and parietal movement domains were commonly found in most areas. These experiments demonstrate that there may be two parallel networks involved in motor control: a posterior parietal network dependent on M1 and a network that includes area 1 that is relatively independent of M1. Furthermore, it appears that the relative size and number of cortical fields in parietal cortex in different species correlates with homotopic and heterotopic effect prevalence. These functional differences in macaques could contribute to more numerous and varied muscle synergies across major muscle groups, supporting the expansion of the primate manual behavioral repertoire observed in Old World monkeys.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Motor cortex and anterior and posterior parietal cortex form a sensorimotor integration network. We tested the extent to which parietal areas could initiate movements independent of M1. Our findings support the contention that, although areas 2, 5L, PF, and PFG are highly dependent on M1 to produce movement, area 1 may constitute a parallel corticospinal pathway that can function somewhat independently of M1. A similar functional architecture may underlie dexterous tool use in humans.

The basal ganglia are a target for sensorimotor domains in posterior parietal, premotor, and motor cortex in primates

Our research focused on defining and characterizing parieto-frontal circuits for specific actions in primates. Part of the posterior parietal cortex is divided into eight or more domains where electrical stimulation evokes a meaningful complex movement. Domains in the posterior parietal cortex compete with each other over excitatory connections that activate inhibitory neurons, while selectively activating functionally matched domains in the premotor cortex and motor cortex. Thus, the selection process involves competition and cooperation between domains over three different regions of cortex. In addition, projections from functionally matched domains in motor regions converge in the matrix of the striatum, whereas projections from different functionally unmatched domains are separate. Thus, the projections of action-specific domains include the basal ganglia, where actions can be permitted or blocked.

The dorsal stream of visual processing and action-specific domains in parietal and frontal cortex in primates

This review summarizes our findings obtained from over 15 years of research on parietal-frontal networks involved in the dorsal stream of cortical processing. We have presented considerable evidence for the existence of similar, partially independent, parietal-frontal networks involved in specific motor actions in a number of primates. These networks are formed by connections between action-specific domains representing the same complex movement evoked by electrical microstimulation. Functionally matched domains in the posterior parietal (PPC) and frontal (M1-PMC) motor regions are hierarchically related. M1 seems to be a critical link in these networks, since the outputs of M1 are essential to the evoked behavior, whereas PPC and PMC mediate complex movements mostly via their connections with M1. Thus, lesioning or deactivating M1 domains selectively blocks matching PMC and PPC domains, while having limited impact on other domains. When pairs of domains are stimulated together, domains within the same parietal-frontal network (matching domains) are cooperative in evoking movements, while they are mainly competitive with other domains (mismatched domains) within the same set of cortical areas. We propose that the interaction of different functional domains in each cortical region (as well as in striatum) occurs mainly via mutual suppression. Thus, the domains at each level are in competition with each other for mediating one of several possible behavioral outcomes.

Thalamic connections of the caudal part of the posterior parietal cortex differ from the rostral part in galagos (Otolemur garnettii)

In this study, thalamic connections of the caudal part of the posterior parietal cortex (PPCc) are described and compared to connections of the rostral part of PPC (PPCr) in strepsirrhine galagos. PPC of galagos is divided into two parts, PPCr and PPCc, based on the responsiveness to electrical stimulation. Stimulation of PPC with long trains of electrical pulses evokes different types of ethologically relevant movements from different subregions ("domains") of PPCr, while it fails to evoke any movements from PPCc. Anatomical tracers were placed in both dorsal and ventral divisions of PPCc to reveal thalamic origins and targets of PPCc connections. We found major thalamic connections of PPCc with the lateral posterior and lateral pulvinar nuclei, distinct from those of PPCr that were mainly with the ventral lateral, anterior pulvinar, and posterior nuclei. The anterior, medial, and inferior pulvinar, ventral anterior, ventral lateral, and intralaminar nuclei had fewer connections with PPCc. Dominant connections of PPCc with lateral posterior and lateral pulvinar nuclei provide evidence that unlike the sensorimotor-orientated PPCr, PPCc is more involved in visual-related functions.

Evolution of behavioural control from chordates to primates

This article outlines a hypothetical sequence of evolutionary innovations, along the lineage that produced humans, which extended behavioural control from simple feedback loops to sophisticated control of diverse species-typical actions. I begin with basic feedback mechanisms of ancient mobile animals and follow the major niche transitions from aquatic to terrestrial life, the retreat into nocturnality in early mammals, the transition to arboreal life and the return to diurnality. Along the way, I propose a sequence of elaboration and diversification of the behavioural repertoire and associated neuroanatomical substrates. This includes midbrain control of approach versus escape actions, telencephalic control of local versus long-range foraging, detection of affordances by the dorsal pallium, diversified control of nocturnal foraging in the mammalian neocortex and expansion of primate frontal, temporal and parietal cortex to support a wide variety of primate-specific behavioural strategies. The result is a proposed functional architecture consisting of parallel control systems, each dedicated to specifying the affordances for guiding particular species-typical actions, which compete against each other through a hierarchy of selection mechanisms.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Systems neuroscience through the lens of evolutionary theory’.

Escaping the nocturnal bottleneck, and the evolution of the dorsal and ventral streams of visual processing in primates

Early mammals were small and nocturnal. Their visual systems had regressed and they had poor vision. After the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 mya, some but not all escaped the 'nocturnal bottleneck' by recovering high-acuity vision. By contrast, early primates escaped the bottleneck within the age of dinosaurs by having large forward-facing eyes and acute vision while remaining nocturnal. We propose that these primates differed from other mammals by changing the balance between two sources of visual information to cortex. Thus, cortical processing became less dependent on a relay of information from the superior colliculus (SC) to temporal cortex and more dependent on information distributed from primary visual cortex (V1). In addition, the two major classes of visual information from the retina became highly segregated into magnocellular (M cell) projections from V1 to the primate-specific temporal visual area (MT), and parvocellular-dominated projections to the dorsolateral visual area (DL or V4). The greatly expanded P cell inputs from V1 informed the ventral stream of cortical processing involving temporal and frontal cortex. The M cell pathways from V1 and the SC informed the dorsal stream of cortical processing involving MT, surrounding temporal cortex, and parietal-frontal sensorimotor domains. This article is part of the theme issue 'Systems neuroscience through the lens of evolutionary theory'.

The cortical connectome of primate lateral prefrontal cortex

The lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) of primates plays an important role in executive control, but how it interacts with the rest of the cortex remains unclear. To address this, we densely mapped the cortical connectome of LPFC, using electrical microstimulation combined with functional MRI (EM-fMRI). We found isomorphic mappings between LPFC and five major processing domains composing most of the cerebral cortex except early sensory and motor areas. An LPFC grid of ∼200 stimulation sites topographically mapped to separate grids of activation sites in the five domains, coarsely resembling how the visual cortex maps the retina. The temporal and parietal maps largely overlapped in LPFC, suggesting topographically organized convergence of the ventral and dorsal streams, and the other maps overlapped at least partially. Thus, the LPFC contains overlapping, millimeter-scale maps that mirror the organization of major cortical processing domains, supporting LPFC's role in coordinating activity within and across these domains.

Organization of Parieto-Prefrontal and Temporo-Prefrontal Networks in the Macaque

The connectivity among architectonically defined areas of the frontal, parietal, and temporal cortex of the macaque has been extensively mapped through tract tracing methods. To investigate the statistical organization underlying this connectivity, and identify its underlying architecture, we performed a hierarchical cluster analysis on 69 cortical areas based on their anatomically defined inputs. We identified 10 frontal, 4 parietal, and 5 temporal hierarchically related sets of areas (clusters), defined by unique sets of inputs and typically composed of anatomically contiguous areas. Across cortex, clusters that share functional properties were linked by dominant information processing circuits in a topographically organized manner that reflects the organization of the main fiber bundles in the cortex. This led to a dorsal-ventral subdivision of the frontal cortex, where dorsal and ventral clusters showed privileged connectivity with parietal and temporal areas, respectively. Ventrally, temporo-frontal circuits encode information to discriminate objects in the environment, their value, emotional properties, and functions such as memory and spatial navigation. Dorsal parieto-frontal circuits encode information for selecting, generating, and monitoring appropriate actions based on visual-spatial and somatosensory information. This organization may reflect evolutionary antecedents, in which the vertebrate pallium, which is the ancestral cortex, was defined by a ventral and lateral olfactory region and a medial hippocampal region.

Cortical connections of the functional domain for climbing or running in posterior parietal cortex of galagos

Previous studies in prosimian galagos (Otolemur garnetti) have demonstrated that posterior parietal cortex (PPC) is subdivided into several functionally distinct domains, each of which mediates a specific type of complex movements (e.g., reaching, grasping, hand-to-mouth) and has a different pattern of cortical connections. Here we identified a medially located domain in PPC where combined forelimb and hindlimb movements, as if climbing or running, were evoked by long-train intracortical microstimulation. We injected anatomical tracers in this climbing/running domain of PPC to reveal its cortical connections. Our results showed the PPC climbing domain had dense intrinsic connections within rostral PPC and reciprocal connections with forelimb and hindlimb region in primary motor cortex (M1) of the ipsilateral hemisphere. Fewer connections were with dorsal premotor cortex (PMd), supplementary motor (SMA), and cingulate motor (CMA) areas, as well as somatosensory cortex including areas 3a, 3b, and 1-2, secondary somatosensory (S2), parietal ventral (PV), and retroinsular (Ri) areas. The rostral portion of the climbing domain had more connections with primary somatosensory cortex than the caudal portion. Cortical projections were found in functionally matched domains in M1 and premotor cortex (PMC). Similar patterns of connections with fewer labeled neurons and terminals were seen in the contralateral hemisphere. These connection patterns are consistent with the proposed role of the climbing/running domain as part of a parietal-frontal network for combined use of the limbs in locomotion as in climbing and running. The cortical connections identify this action-specific domain in PPC as a more somatosensory driven domain.

Interactions within and between parallel parietal-frontal networks involved in complex motor behaviors in prosimian galagos and a squirrel monkey

Long-train intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) of motor (M1) and posterior parietal cortices (PPC) in primates reveals cortical domains for different ethologically relevant behaviors. How functional domains interact with each other in producing motor behaviors is not known. In this study, we tested our hypothesis that matching domains interact to produce a specific complex movement, whereas connections between nonmatching domains are involved in suppression of conflicting motor outputs to prevent competing movements. In anesthetized galagos, we used 500-ms trains of ICMS to evoke complex movements from a functional domain in M1 or PPC while simultaneously stimulating another mismatched or matched domain. We considered movements of different and similar directions evoked from chosen cortical sites distant or close to each other. Their trajectories and speeds were analyzed and compared with those evoked by simultaneous stimulation. Stimulation of two sites evoking same or complementary movements produced a similar but more pronounced movement or a combined movement, respectively. Stimulation of two sites representing movements of different directions resulted in partial or total suppression of one of these movements. Thus interactions between domains in M1 and PPC were additive when they were functionally matched across fields or antagonistic between functionally conflicting domains, especially in PPC, suggesting that mismatched domains are involved in mutual suppression. Simultaneous stimulation of unrelated domains (forelimb and face) produced both movements independently. Movements produced by the simultaneous stimulation of sites in domains of two cerebral hemispheres were largely independent, but some interactions were observed.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Long trains of electrical pulses applied simultaneously to two sites in motor cortical areas (M1, PPC) have shown that interactions of functionally matched domains (evoking similar movements) within these areas were additive to produce a specific complex movement. Interactions between functionally mismatched domains (evoking different movements) were mostly antagonistic, suggesting their involvement in mutual suppression of conflicting motor outputs to prevent competing movements. Simultaneous stimulation of unrelated domains (forelimb and face) produced both movements independently.