4.6 Article

Different Modulation of Common Motor Information in Rat Primary and Secondary Motor Cortices

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098662

关键词

-

资金

  1. JST CREST
  2. MEXT [22120520, 24120715, 24300143]
  3. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  4. Brain Science Foundation
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25430013, 22120520, 24120715, 26119526] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rodents have primary and secondary motor cortices that are involved in the execution of voluntary movements via their direct and parallel projections to the spinal cord. However, it is unclear whether the rodent secondary motor cortex has any motor function distinct from the primary motor cortex to properly control voluntary movements. In the present study, we quantitatively examined neuronal activity in the caudal forelimb area (CFA) of the primary motor cortex and rostral forelimb area (RFA) of the secondary motor cortex in head-fixed rats performing forelimb movements (pushing, holding, and pulling a lever). We found virtually no major differences between CFA and RFA neurons, regardless of neuron subtypes, not only in their basal spiking properties but also in the time-course, amplitude, and direction preference of their functional activation for simple forelimb movements. However, the RFA neurons, as compared with the CFA neurons, showed obviously a greater susceptibility of their functional activation to an alteration in a behavioral situation, a 'rewarding' response that leads to reward or a 'consummatory' response that follows reward water, which might be accompanied by some internal adaptations without affecting the motor outputs. Our results suggest that, although the CFA and RFA neurons commonly process fundamental motor information to properly control forelimb movements, the RFA neurons may be functionally differentiated to integrate motor information with internal state information for an adaptation to goal-directed behaviors.

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

4.6
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