Cited by 567Memory and Neural MechanismsNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Anatomical organization of the parahippocampal-hippocampal network

WITTER, MENNO P., WOUTERLOOD, FLORIS G., NABER, PIETERKE A., VAN HAEFTEN, THEO·2000·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The anatomical organization of the parahippocampal-hippocampal network indicates that it consists of different parallel circuits. Considering the topographical distribution of sensory cortical inputs, the hypothesis is that the major parallel circuits carry functionally different information. These functionally different parallel routes reach different portions of the hippocampal network along the longitudinal axis of all fields as well as along the perpendicularly oriented transverse axis of CA1 and the subiculum. In the remaining fields of the hippocampal formation, that is, the dentate gyrus and CA2/CA3, separation along the transverse axis is not present. By contrast, here the functionally different pathways converge onto the same neuronal population. The entorhinal cortex holds a pivotal position among the cortices that make up the parahippocampal region. By way of the networks of the superficial and deep layers, it mediates, respectively, the input and output streams of the hippocampal formation. Moreover, the intrinsic entorhinal network, particularly the interconnections between the deep and superficial layers, may mediate the comparison of hippocampal input and output signals. As such, the entorhinal cortex may form part of a novelty detection network. In addition, the organization of the entorhinal-hippocampal network may facilitate the holding of information. Finally, the terminal organization of the presubicular input to the medial entorhinal cortex indicates that the interactions between the deep and superficial entorhinal layers may be influenced by this input.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06716.x

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WITTER, M. P., WOUTERLOOD, F. G., NABER, P. A., & VAN HAEFTEN, T.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
WITTER, MENNO P.
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-06
Volume
911
Issue
1
Pages
1-24
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W2018947767
Cited by
567
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 22
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
entorhinal cortex, hippocampal formation, parallel circuits, CA1, subiculum, dentate gyrus, novelty detection
MeSH terms
Animals, Hippocampus, Humans, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, Synaptic Transmission, Parahippocampal Gyrus

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