Cited by 4Motor Control and AdaptationNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Symmetry in frontal but not motor and somatosensory cortical projections

Open access
Papale, Andrew E., Harish, Madhumita, Paletzki, Ronald F., O’Connor, Nathan J., Eastwood, Brian S., Seal, Rebecca P., Williamson, Ross S., Gerfen, Charles R. +1 more·2024·The Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The neocortex and striatum are topographically organized for sensory and motor functions. While sensory and motor areas are lateralized for touch and motor control, respectively, frontal areas are involved in decision-making, where lateralization of function may be less important. This study contrasted the topographic precision of cell-type–specific ipsilateral and contralateral cortical projections while varying the injection site location in transgenic mice of both sexes. While sensory cortical areas had strongly topographic outputs to the ipsilateral cortex and striatum, they were weaker and not as topographically precise to contralateral targets. The motor cortex had somewhat stronger projections but still relatively weak contralateral topography. In contrast, frontal cortical areas had high degrees of topographic similarity for both ipsilateral and contralateral projections to the cortex and striatum. Corticothalamic organization is mainly ipsilateral, with weaker, more medial contralateral projections. Corticostriatal computations might integrate input outside closed basal ganglia loops using contralateral projections, enabling the two hemispheres to act as a unit to converge on one result in motor planning and decision-making.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.1195-23.2024

Cites

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?

  • Sensory S1 and S2 cortices have strongly lateralized ipsilateral outputs and are densely and reciprocally interconnected, forming a top-down feedback loop that exhibits choice-related activity.

    “In contrast, sensory S1 and S2 cortices have strongly lateralized ipsilateral outputs (43, 59) and are densely and reciprocally interconnected (60) forming a top–down feedback loop that exhibits choice-related activity (10, 11, 22–25).”

    From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [59]

    The section ‘Organization and strength of the corticostriatal projection’ reports that S1 contralateral projections were much weaker than its ipsilateral projections, supporting strongly lateralized outputs for S1. The cited paper does not establish the same result for S2. The reciprocal connections and choice-related feedback in the sentence are attached to other citations, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This global regulation is unlikely to originate directly from frontal cortical premotor areas since frontal cortices have a high degree of symmetry for both ipsilateral and contralateral projections.

    “Therefore, this global regulation is unlikely to originate directly from frontal cortical premotor areas (12–14) since frontal cortices have a high degree of symmetry for both ipsilateral and contralateral projections (59).”

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 87 · Cited by 4

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hooks, B.M., Papale, A.E., Paletzki, R.F., Feroze, M.W., Eastwood, B.S., Couey, J.J., Winnubst, J., Chandrashekar, J., and Gerfen, C.R. (2018). Topographic precision in sensory and motor corticostriatal projections varies across cell type and cortical area. Nat Commun 9 , 3549. 10.1038/s41467-018-05780-7. · DOI
  2. Paxinos, G., and Franklin, H.B.J. (2004). The Mouse Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates: Compact Second Edition (Elsevier).

Authors
Papale, A. E., Harish, M., Paletzki, R. F., O’Connor, N. J., Eastwood, B. S., Seal, R. P., Williamson, R. S., Gerfen, C. R., & Hooks, B. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • MBF Bioscience (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gerfen, Charles R.
  • Hooks, Bryan M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2024-06-27
Volume
44
Issue
33
Pages
e1195232024
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W4400080100
Cited by
4
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • NARSAD Young Investigator Award
  • NINDS (R01 NS103993)
  • Whitehall
  • PRMRP Discovery Award (PR201842)
  • National Institute of Mental Health IRP (ZIA MH002497-33)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
topographic mapping, ipsilateral projection, contralateral projections, frontal cortex, motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, corticothalamic projections, corticostriatal projections, striatum, hemispheric integration, decision-making, motor planning, transgenic 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