Cited by 529Neural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural MechanismsMotor Control and Adaptation

Maintenance of persistent activity in a frontal thalamocortical loop

Open access
Guo, Zengcai V., Inagaki, Hidehiko K., Daie, Kayvon, Druckmann, Shaul, Gerfen, Charles R., Svoboda, Karel·2017·Nature

Abstract

Persistent neural activity maintains information that connects past and future events. Models of persistent activity often invoke reverberations within local cortical circuits, but long-range circuits could also contribute. Neurons in the mouse anterior lateral motor cortex (ALM) have been shown to have selective persistent activity that instructs future actions. The ALM is connected bidirectionally with parts of the thalamus, including the ventral medial and ventral anterior-lateral nuclei. We recorded spikes from the ALM and thalamus during tactile discrimination with a delayed directional response. Here we show that, similar to ALM neurons, thalamic neurons exhibited selective persistent delay activity that predicted movement direction. Unilateral photoinhibition of delay activity in the ALM or thalamus produced contralesional neglect. Photoinhibition of the thalamus caused a short-latency and near-complete collapse of ALM activity. Similarly, photoinhibition of the ALM diminished thalamic activity. Our results show that the thalamus is a circuit hub in motor preparation and suggest that persistent activity requires reciprocal excitation across multiple brain areas.

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 · 10.1038/nature22324

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Persistent-activity reverberatory loops involve not only corticocortical connections but also subcortical regions, especially the thalamus and cerebellar nuclei.

    “recent experimental evidence indicates that the reverberatory loops for persistent neuronal activity not only involve corticocortical interactions but also loop through subcortical regions with an important role for the thalamus and cerebellar nuclei (Gao et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2017).”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2017

    The Discussion and Abstract support a role for a recurrent cortex–thalamus loop in maintaining persistent activity. The Discussion also identifies input from deep cerebellar nuclei to the thalamus, but says the roles of those more complex loops remain unresolved; it does not establish an important role for cerebellar nuclei in maintaining persistent activity. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent evidence in rodents shows that persistence of neuronal firing rates for working memory storage is not purely cortical but relies on interactions with subcortical structures including thalamus and cerebellar nuclei.

    “Recent evidence in rodents demonstrated that the persistence of neuronal firing rates for working memory storage is not a purely cortical phenomenon but instead relies on the interactions with subcortical structures, including the thalamus (Guo et al., 2017) and cerebellar nuclei (Gao et al., 2018).”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2017

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, Z. V., Inagaki, H. K., Daie, K., Druckmann, S., Gerfen, C. R., & Svoboda, K.
Affiliations
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Svoboda, Karel
Venue
Nature
Published
2017-05
Volume
545
Issue
7653
Pages
181-186
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2611542631
Cited by
529
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 12
FWCI
31.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
persistent activity, thalamocortical loop, anterior lateral motor cortex, thalamus, photoinhibition, tactile discrimination, motor preparation, recurrent excitation
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Male, Motor Cortex, Movement, Neurons, Thalamus, Touch, Mice

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