MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799463070 · doi:10.1002/cne.24453

Cortical connections of area 2 and posterior parietal area 5 in macaque monkeys

2018· article· en· W2799463070 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Padberg, Dylan F. Cooke, Christina M. Cerkevich, Jon H. Kaas, Leah Krubitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Comparative Neurology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPosterior parietal cortexMacaqueSomatosensory systemNeuroscienceSupplementary motor areaPremotor cortexCortex (anatomy)AnatomyParietal lobeBiologyMotor areaMotor cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingDorsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overarching goal of the current investigation was to examine the connections of anterior parietal area 2 and the medial portion of posterior parietal area 5 in macaque monkeys; two areas that are part of a network involved reaching and grasping in primates. We injected neuroanatomical tracers into specified locations in each field and directly related labeled cells to histologically identified cortical field boundaries. Labeled cells were counted so that the relative density of projections to areas 2 and 5 from other cortical fields could be determined. Projections to area 2 were restricted and were predominantly from other somatosensory areas of the anterior parietal cortex (areas 1, 3b, and 3a), the second somatosensory area (S2), and from medial and lateral portions of area 5 (5M and 5L respectively). On the other hand, area 5M had very broadly distributed projections from a number of cortical areas including anterior parietal areas, from primary motor cortex (M1), premotor cortex (PM), the supplementary motor area (SMA), cortex on the medial wall, and from posterior parietal areas 5L and 7b. The more restricted pattern of connections of area 2 indicates that it processes somatic inputs locally and provides proprioceptive information to area 5M. 5M, which at least partially overlaps with functionally defined area MIP, receives inputs from somatosensory (predominantly from area 2), posterior parietal and motor cortex, which could provide the substrate for representing multiple coordinate systems necessary for planning ethologically relevant movements, particularly those involving the hand.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Comparative NeurologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207