4.3 Article

Properties and hemispheric differences of theta oscillations in the human hippocampus

期刊

HIPPOCAMPUS
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 335-341

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hipo.23412

关键词

declarative memory; human hippocampus; intracranial; single neuron; theta oscillations

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [U01NS117839, U01NS103792]
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF) [BCS-1554105]
  3. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH110831]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study recorded neuronal activity in the human hippocampus and found differences between the left and right hemispheres at a neural level. The right hippocampus had higher average frequency of theta bouts compared to the left hippocampus, while the left hippocampus had lower amplitude and higher prevalence of theta bouts. Additionally, visually tuned neurons were only present in the right hippocampus.
The left and right primate hippocampi (LH and RH) are thought to support distinct functions, but little is known about differences between the hemispheres at the neuronal level. We recorded single-neuron and local field potentials from the human hippocampus in epilepsy patients implanted with depth electrodes. We detected theta-frequency bouts of oscillatory activity while patients performed a visual recognition memory task. Theta appeared in bouts of 3.16 cycles, with sawtooth-shaped oscillations that had a prolonged downswing period. Outside the seizure onset zone, the average frequency of theta bouts was higher in the RH compared to the LH (6.0 vs. 5.3 Hz). LH theta bouts had lower amplitudes and a higher prevalence compared to the RH (26% vs. 21% of total time). Additionally, the RH contained a population of thin spiking visually tuned neurons that were not present in the LH. These data show that human theta appears in short oscillatory bouts whose properties vary between hemispheres, thereby revealing neurophysiological properties of the hippocampus that differ between the hemispheres.

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

4.3
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