Difference between revisions of "A comparison of the efferents of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey: I. Convergence in the entorhinal, prorhinal, and perirhinal cortices"
(Created page with "''Saunders RC and Rosene DL (1988) A comparison of the efferents of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey: I. Convergence in the entorhinal, prorhina...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Reference | |
| − | + | |reference= | |
| − | + | Saunders RC and Rosene DL (1988) A comparison of the efferents of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey: I. Convergence in the entorhinal, prorhinal, and perirhinal cortices. J Comp Neurol 271:2 153–84. | |
| − | + | |url= | |
| − | = | + | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cne.902710202/epdf |
| + | |||
| + | |abstract= | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is the first in a series of papers investigating the neuroanatomical basis for the interaction of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey. The present report focuses on the complementary and convergent projections of the amygdala and hippocampal formation to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices. These results were obtained from complementary experiments using injections of radioactively labeled amino acids to identify the anterograde projection patterns and injections of horseradish peroxidase and fluorescent retrograde tracers to confirm the cytoarchitectonic location of the neurons of origin for each projection. The results of this investigation demonstrate that both the hippocampal formation and the amygdala project to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices where, with a few exceptions, the major projections of each structure generally are found in different layers of the same cytoarchitecture subdivisions of the entorhinal cortex but overlap in the same layers of the perirhinal cortex. Thus, the lateral and accessory basal nuclei of the amygdala project to layer 3 of areas Pr1, 28I, 28L, and 28S, and the accessory basal nucleus projects strongly to layer 1 of these same areas. In contrast, the subiculum, prosubiculum, and subfield CA1 of the of the hippocampal formation all have a projection to layer 5 of these same areas. In area 28M, the accessory basal nucleus of the amygdala projects to layer 1, while the subiculum, prosubiculum, and subfield CA1 of the hippocampal formation all project to layer 5, and the presubiculum projects to layer 3. In addition to these complementary laminar projections, there are a few areas of laminar overlap. Thus in area 28S, both the presubiculum and the CA1 subfield project to layer 3, where the lateral and accessory basal amygdaloid nuclei also project. Similarly, in 28I there is a major projection from the presubiculum and a lighter projection from the subiculum and CA1 to layer 3, where the lateral and accessory basal nuclei also project. There is also extensive laminar overlap in the perirhinal cortex. From the amygdala, the accessory basal nucleus projects to layers 1 and 3 and the lateral basal nucleus to layers 3, 5, and 6, while from the hippocampal formation, the prosubiculum projects to layers 3, 5, and 6, and the CA1 subfield projects to layer 5. This pattern of hippocampal and amygdaloid projections to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices indicates that these cortices constitute a region of potentially extensive interaction between the amygdala and the hippocampus. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |keywords= | ||
| + | |||
| + | subiculum, presubiculum, accessory basal, amygdaloid nucleus, lateral amygdaloid nucleus, medial temporal area | ||
| + | |||
| + | |context= | ||
*Animal study in macaque using anatomical tracers to identify projections from the amygdala and hippocampal formation to entorhinal and perirhinal cortex. Identifying extensive projections, the authors discuss the possibility for amygdalar-hippocampal interaction in these cortical regions. This is a potential means by which activity in one of the structures could influence autonomic output from the other. Direct connections are described in Saunders et al. | *Animal study in macaque using anatomical tracers to identify projections from the amygdala and hippocampal formation to entorhinal and perirhinal cortex. Identifying extensive projections, the authors discuss the possibility for amygdalar-hippocampal interaction in these cortical regions. This is a potential means by which activity in one of the structures could influence autonomic output from the other. Direct connections are described in Saunders et al. | ||
| − | = | + | |comments= |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:07, 17 June 2019
Saunders RC and Rosene DL (1988) A comparison of the efferents of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey: I. Convergence in the entorhinal, prorhinal, and perirhinal cortices. J Comp Neurol 271:2 153–84.
Abstract: This is the first in a series of papers investigating the neuroanatomical basis for the interaction of the amygdala and the hippocampal formation in the rhesus monkey. The present report focuses on the complementary and convergent projections of the amygdala and hippocampal formation to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices. These results were obtained from complementary experiments using injections of radioactively labeled amino acids to identify the anterograde projection patterns and injections of horseradish peroxidase and fluorescent retrograde tracers to confirm the cytoarchitectonic location of the neurons of origin for each projection. The results of this investigation demonstrate that both the hippocampal formation and the amygdala project to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices where, with a few exceptions, the major projections of each structure generally are found in different layers of the same cytoarchitecture subdivisions of the entorhinal cortex but overlap in the same layers of the perirhinal cortex. Thus, the lateral and accessory basal nuclei of the amygdala project to layer 3 of areas Pr1, 28I, 28L, and 28S, and the accessory basal nucleus projects strongly to layer 1 of these same areas. In contrast, the subiculum, prosubiculum, and subfield CA1 of the of the hippocampal formation all have a projection to layer 5 of these same areas. In area 28M, the accessory basal nucleus of the amygdala projects to layer 1, while the subiculum, prosubiculum, and subfield CA1 of the hippocampal formation all project to layer 5, and the presubiculum projects to layer 3. In addition to these complementary laminar projections, there are a few areas of laminar overlap. Thus in area 28S, both the presubiculum and the CA1 subfield project to layer 3, where the lateral and accessory basal amygdaloid nuclei also project. Similarly, in 28I there is a major projection from the presubiculum and a lighter projection from the subiculum and CA1 to layer 3, where the lateral and accessory basal nuclei also project. There is also extensive laminar overlap in the perirhinal cortex. From the amygdala, the accessory basal nucleus projects to layers 1 and 3 and the lateral basal nucleus to layers 3, 5, and 6, while from the hippocampal formation, the prosubiculum projects to layers 3, 5, and 6, and the CA1 subfield projects to layer 5. This pattern of hippocampal and amygdaloid projections to the entorhinal and perirhinal cortices indicates that these cortices constitute a region of potentially extensive interaction between the amygdala and the hippocampus.
Keywords: subiculum, presubiculum, accessory basal, amygdaloid nucleus, lateral amygdaloid nucleus, medial temporal area
Context
- Animal study in macaque using anatomical tracers to identify projections from the amygdala and hippocampal formation to entorhinal and perirhinal cortex. Identifying extensive projections, the authors discuss the possibility for amygdalar-hippocampal interaction in these cortical regions. This is a potential means by which activity in one of the structures could influence autonomic output from the other. Direct connections are described in Saunders et al.