Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Edinger‐Westphal nucleus: A historical, structural, and functional perspective on a dichotomous terminology

Open access
Kozicz, Tamás, Bittencourt, Jackson C., May, Paul J., Reiner, Anton, Gamlin, Paul D.R., Palkovits, Miklós, Horn, Anja K.E., Toledo, Claudio A.B., Ryabinin, Andrey E.·2011·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

The eponymous term nucleus of Edinger‐Westphal (EW) has come to be used to describe two juxtaposed and somewhat intermingled cell groups of the midbrain that differ dramatically in their connectivity and neurochemistry. On one hand, the classically defined EW is the part of the oculomotor complex that is the source of the parasympathetic preganglionic motoneuron input to the ciliary ganglion (CG), through which it controls pupil constriction and lens accommodation. On the other hand, EW is applied to a population of centrally projecting neurons involved in sympathetic, consumptive, and stress‐related functions. This terminology problem arose because the name EW has historically been applied to the most prominent cell collection above or between the somatic oculomotor nuclei (III), an assumption based on the known location of the preganglionic motoneurons in monkeys. However, in many mammals, the nucleus designated as EW is not made up of cholinergic, preganglionic motoneurons supplying the CG and instead contains neurons using peptides, such as urocortin 1, with diverse central projections. As a result, the literature has become increasingly confusing. To resolve this problem, we suggest that the term EW be supplemented with terminology based on connectivity. Specifically, we recommend that 1) the cholinergic, preganglionic neurons supplying the CG be termed the Edinger‐Westphal preganglionic (EWpg) population and 2) the centrally projecting, peptidergic neurons be termed the Edinger‐Westphal centrally projecting (EWcp) population. The history of this nomenclature problem and the rationale for our solutions are discussed in this review. J. Comp. Neurol. 519:1413–1434, 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.22580

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Kozicz, T., Bittencourt, J. C., May, P. J., Reiner, A., Gamlin, P. D. R., Palkovits, M., Horn, A. K. E., Toledo, C. A. B., & Ryabinin, A. E.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-18
Volume
519
Issue
8
Pages
1413-1434
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2152103038
Cited by
203
References
3
FWCI
70.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Edinger‐Westphal nucleus: A historical, structural, and functional perspective on a dichotomous terminology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.22580
The paper
Kozicz, T., Bittencourt, J. C., May, P. J., Reiner, A., Gamlin, P. D. R., Palkovits, M., Horn, A. K. E., Toledo, C. A. B., & Ryabinin, A. E. (2011). The Edinger‐Westphal nucleus: A historical, structural, and functional perspective on a dichotomous terminology. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22580

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.