Elsevier

Brain Research

Volume 26, Issue 2, 5 March 1971, Pages 217-233
Brain Research

Intra- and interhemispheric projections of the precentral, premotor and arcuate areas in the rhesus monkey*

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-8993(71)80001-XGet rights and content

Summary

The intra- and interhemispheric connections of various parts of the precentral gyrus and rostrally adjacent frontal areas are studied with silver impregnation techniques in the rhesus monkey. The subdivisions of the precentral motor area (MI) are found to be connected ipsilaterally in a topographic manner with the premotor area, MII, primary somatosensory area (SI) and the second sensory area (SII). The areas in MI representing the hand and foot do not project to the opposite hemisphere whereas face-, trunk-, and limb-girdle areas do so, and their projections are directed to both homotopical and non-homotopical areas, including topographic projections to MII. These non-homotopical projections form an arch anterior to the projection-free hand and foot areas representing the dorsal aspect of the body from face to occiput and from thoracolumbar to sacral segment of the trunk.

The premotor and arcuate regions can be differentiated on the basis of their intrahemispheric connectivity. The premotor area sends projections to its immediate vicinity (the prefrontal cortex MI and MII), to the superior parietal lobule including the adjacent upper bank of the intraparietal sulcus and to the rostral part of the inferior parietal lobule. In contrast, the projections of areas within the concavity of the arcuate sulcus are directed to the prefrontal cortex, to the caudal part of the inferior parietal lobule including the adjacent lower bank of the intraparietal sulcus and to the cingulate gyrus. Likewise, the interhemispheric connections of the premotor areas and the arcuate areas are mainly found in the homotopic regions except for a small area above the caudal tip of the principal sulcus. The non-homotopic projection of the premotor areas are directed to MI, MII, and prefrontal cortex, whereas those from the arcuate areas are observed in the prefrontal cortex only. The possible significance of these projections is discussed.

References (29)

  • Denny-BrownD. et al.

    The motor functions of the agranular frontal cortex

    Res. Publ. Ass. nerv. ment. Dis.

    (1948)
  • Denny-BrownD. et al.

    The parietal lobe and behavior

    Res. Publ. Ass. nerv. ment. Dis.

    (1958)
  • DevitoJ.L. et al.

    Projections from the mesial frontal cortex (supplementary motor area) of the cerebral hemispheres and brain stem of the Macaca mulatta

    J. comp. Neurol.

    (1959)
  • EbnerF. et al.

    The commissural connections in the neocortex of the monkey

    Anat. Rec.

    (1962)
  • Cited by (237)

    • Sex comparisons of the bilateral deficit in proximal and distal upper body limb muscles

      2019, Human Movement Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Anatomically, transcallosal fibers connect both hemispheres through the corpus callosum in primates. In addition, the number of transcallosal projections that link proximal muscle representations in the primary somatosensory cortex (S1) and primary motor cortex (M1) areas is larger than those of the distal muscles (Gould, Cusick, Pons, & Kaas, 1986; Pandya & Vignolo, 1971; Rouiller et al., 1994). Thus, the number of corticospinal projections is greater in distal compared to more proximal muscles (Kuypers, 1978; Palmer & Ashby, 1992).

    • Motor output, neural states and auditory perception

      2019, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
    • Distant heterotopic callosal connections to premotor cortex in non-human primates

      2017, Neuroscience
      Citation Excerpt :

      In non-human primates, the majority of brain connectivity data (see datasets established based on the work of Paxinos et al., 2000; Van Essen, 2002; Dubach and Bowden, 2009; Rohlfing et al., 2012; Markov et al., 2014; Calebrese et al., 2015) originate from one hemisphere based on the assumption (though unproven) that lateralization does not play a key role in macaques’. The few available studies (e.g. Pandya and Vignolo, 1971) state that callosal connections predominantly link homotopic cortical regions. This view has been questioned in the past decade (Clarke, 2003) and new evidence of numerous and widespread heterotopic callosal connections have emerged in human studies.

    • Cytoarchitecture and cortical connections of the anterior insula and adjacent frontal motor fields in the rhesus monkey

      2015, Brain Research Bulletin
      Citation Excerpt :

      Like the ventral premotor areas and area ProM, the ventral area 4 receives projections from the rostral part of MII, and from the rostral portion of areas M3 and M4 (orofacial representations). Overall, this projection pattern is in agreement with previous studies which have examined the cortical connections of the ventral precentral orofacial region (e.g., Pandya and Vignolo, 1971; Godschalk et al., 1984; Morecraft et al., 1996; Tokuno et al., 1997) Thus, it seems that, like the dorsal motor proiso- and isocortical areas (Morecraft et al., 2012), the ventral motor proiso- and isocortical areas (area ProM and the ventral portion of area 6) have widespread connections with the prefrontal and parietal cortices as well as with the ventral portions of areas 3, 4, and the rostral portions of MII and the two cingulate motor areas (Fig. 15).

    • cTBS delivered to the left somatosensory cortex changes its functional connectivity during rest

      2015, NeuroImage
      Citation Excerpt :

      Outside the shared circuits, sICA showed that cTBS over the SI reduced the degree to which a number of brain regions participate in the four ICs we explored, including in particular a number of brain regions known to be strongly associated with the SI during the planning, execution and observation of motor actions (basal ganglia, cerebellum, BA6 (Rizzolatti et al., 1996)), the processing of tactile stimuli and the observation of touch in others (SII in the parietal operculum, (Keysers et al., 2004)) and the experience and observation of nociceptive stimuli (anterior cingulate, amygdala, (Duerden and Albanese, 2013; Lamm et al., 2011)). Importantly, this network includes regions known to have direct or indirect connections with the region of the SI we have targeted (Jones, 1986; Pandya and Vignolo, 1971; Shanks et al., 1985; Wise et al., 1997). We must stress that not having a functional measurement of the effectiveness of our stimulation limits our conclusions.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    *

    A preliminary report of the present findings has been published elsewhere21.

    **

    Present address: Clinica delle Malattie Nervose e Mentali, Università degli Studi di Trieste, 34129 Trieste, Italy.

    View full text