4.7 Review

Foraging with the frontal cortex: A cross-species evaluation of reward-guided behavior

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 134-146

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-021-01140-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01MH110822, R34NS122050, R01DA047870, R21MH122800, R01MH118638]
  2. NSF [L02606277]
  3. UCLA Division of Life Sciences Retention Funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient foraging is crucial for survival in mammals and relies on the frontal cortex. The comparison of frontal cortex in rodents and non-human primates is a topic of intense debate, with a focus on understanding the similarities and differences in behavior and anatomy in these animal models. Highlighting convergence and divergence in how different parts of the frontal cortex contribute to foraging in rats and macaques can provide insights for future research directions.
Efficient foraging is essential to survival and depends on frontal cortex in mammals. Because of its role in psychiatric disorders, frontal cortex and its contributions to reward procurement have been studied extensively in both rodents and non-human primates. How frontal cortex of these animal models compares is a source of intense debate. Here we argue that translating findings from rodents to non-human primates requires an appreciation of both the niche in which each animal forages as well as the similarities in frontal cortex anatomy and function. Consequently, we highlight similarities and differences in behavior and anatomy, before focusing on points of convergence in how parts of frontal cortex contribute to distinct aspects of foraging in rats and macaques, more specifically. In doing so, our aim is to emphasize where translation of frontal cortex function between species is clearer, where there is divergence, and where future work should focus. We finish by highlighting aspects of foraging for which have received less attention but we believe are critical to uncovering how frontal cortex promotes survival in each species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据