4.4 Article

Neuronal activity throughout the primate mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus during oculomotor delayed-responses. II. Activity encoding visual versus motor signal

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 92, 期 3, 页码 1756-1769

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00995.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We collected single-neuron activity from the mediodorsal (MD) nucleus of the thalamus, examined the information that was represented by task-related activity during performance of a spatial working memory task, and compared the present results with those obtained in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). We used two oculomotor delayed-response (ODR) tasks. In the ordinary ODR task, monkeys were required to make a memory-guided saccade to the location where a visual cue had been presented 3 s previously, whereas in the rotatory ODR task, they were required to make a memory-guided saccade 90degrees clockwise from the cue direction. By comparing the best directions of the same task-related activity between the two tasks, we could determine whether this activity represented the cue location or the saccade direction. All cue-period activity represented the cue location. In contrast, 56% of delay-period activity represented the cue location and 41% represented the saccade direction. Almost all response-period activity represented the saccade direction. These results indicate that task-related MD activity represents either visual or motor information, suggesting that the MD participates in sensory-to-motor information processing. However, a greater proportion of delay- and response-period activities represented the saccade direction in the MD than in the DLPFC, indicating that more MD neurons participate in prospective information processing than DLPFC neurons. These results suggest that although functional interactions between the MD and DLPFC are crucial to cognitive functions such as working memory, there is a difference in how the MD and DLPFC participate in these functions.

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

4.4
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