4.6 Article

Weight Consistency Specifies Regularities of Macaque Cortical Networks

Journal

CEREBRAL CORTEX
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 1254-1272

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhq201

Keywords

amygdala; area 17; macaque; network; primate; thalamus

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-MH-60974]
  2. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA 201473-35045]
  3. Hungarian Bioinformatics [MTKD-CT-2006-042794]
  4. Marie Curie
  5. [EU-FP6-2005 IST-1583 DAISY]
  6. [EU-FP7-2007 ICT-216593 SECO]
  7. [ANR-05-NEUR-088]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To what extent cortical pathways show significant weight differences and whether these differences are consistent across animals (thereby comprising robust connectivity profiles) is an important and unresolved neuroanatomical issue. Here we report a quantitative retrograde tracer analysis in the cynomolgus macaque monkey of the weight consistency of the afferents of cortical areas across brains via calculation of a weight index (fraction of labeled neurons, FLN). Injection in 8 cortical areas (3 occipital plus 5 in the other lobes) revealed a consistent pattern: small subcortical input (1.3% cumulative FLN), high local intrinsic connectivity (80% FLN), high-input form neighboring areas (15% cumulative FLN), and weak long-range corticocortical connectivity (3% cumulative FLN). Corticocortical FLN values of projections to areas V1, V2, and V4 showed heavy-tailed, lognormal distributions spanning 5 orders of magnitude that were consistent, demonstrating significant connectivity profiles. These results indicate that 1) connection weight heterogeneity plays an important role in determining cortical network specificity, 2) high investment in local projections highlights the importance of local processing, and 3) transmission of information across multiple hierarchy levels mainly involves pathways having low FLN values.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available