Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Symposium and Mini-Symposium

More than Just a “Motor”: Recent Surprises from the Frontal Cortex

Christian L. Ebbesen, Michele N. Insanally, Charles D. Kopec, Masayoshi Murakami, Akiko Saiki and Jeffrey C. Erlich
Journal of Neuroscience 31 October 2018, 38 (44) 9402-9413; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1671-18.2018
Christian L. Ebbesen
1Skirball Institute for Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016,
2Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York 10003,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christian L. Ebbesen
Michele N. Insanally
1Skirball Institute for Biomolecular Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016,
2Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, New York 10003,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michele N. Insanally
Charles D. Kopec
3Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masayoshi Murakami
4Department of Neurophysiology, Division of Medicine, University of Yamanashi, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Masayoshi Murakami
Akiko Saiki
5Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, 734-8553, Japan,
6Department of Neurobiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey C. Erlich
7New York University Shanghai, Shanghai, China 200122,
8NYU-ECNU Institute for Brain and Cognitive Science at NYU Shanghai, Shanghai, China 200062, and
9Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics (Ministry of Education), East China Normal University, Shanghai, China 200062
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jeffrey C. Erlich
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Motor and premotor cortices are crucial for the control of movements. However, we still know little about how these areas contribute to higher-order motor control, such as deciding which movements to make and when to make them. Here we focus on rodent studies and review recent findings, which suggest that—in addition to motor control—neurons in motor cortices play a role in sensory integration, behavioral strategizing, working memory, and decision-making. We suggest that these seemingly disparate functions may subserve an evolutionarily conserved role in sensorimotor cognition and that further study of rodent motor cortices could make a major contribution to our understanding of the evolution and function of the mammalian frontal cortex.

  • motor control
  • active sensing
  • action selection
  • action timing
  • decision-making
  • frontal cortex

Introduction

Primate motor and premotor cortices are some of the most intensely studied structures in all of neuroscience. Despite our sizeable knowledge, several major conceptual questions remain open. For example, the classic controversy over whether motor cortex acts mainly as a musclelotopic map of the body, organizing low-level features of movements (e.g., force; Evarts, 1968; Asanuma, 1975) or mainly represents high-level movement kinematics (Fetz, 1992; Omrani et al., 2017) has recently been further complicated by the observation that motor cortex appears to be organized both somatotopically and according to behavioral categories (Graziano et al., 2002; Graziano, 2016). Second, it is still an open question whether population activity sums to generate motor output (Georgopoulos et al., 1982, 1986), or whether preparatory activity, for example (Tanji and Evarts, 1976) is better understood as acting to configure the state of a dynamical system (Shenoy et al., 2013). Third, in a sense, motor control is decision-making (Wolpert and Landy, 2012), but we still know little about how motor cortices contribute to actually deciding how and when to act (or not to act; Ebbesen and Brecht, 2017), beyond simply managing the execution of the selected motor plans (Gold and Shadlen, 2007; Thura and Cisek, 2014; Remington et al., 2018). Finally, the discovery of mirror neuron responses in premotor (di Pellegrino et al., 1992), but also in proper M1 (Tkach et al., 2007; Dushanova and Donoghue, 2010) and corticospinal M1 neurons (Vigneswaran et al., 2013; Kraskov et al., 2014) raises intriguing questions about how motor cortices contribute to motor imagery, action understanding, social meta-cognition and cognition more generally (Kilner and Lemon, 2013).

A comparative study of forebrain motor control in rodents in addition to primates (and other species; Ocaña et al., 2015), could be a powerful way to advance our understanding of the evolution and function of the mammalian frontal cortex. In recent years, there has been massive advances in tools for monitoring and manipulating neural activity of awake, behaving rodents with cellular and subcellular resolution, beyond what is currently practical in primates. For example, there are currently abundantly available transgenic lines and viral tools (Heldt and Ressler, 2009; Witten et al., 2011; Harris et al., 2014), optogenetics (Deisseroth, 2015; Kim et al., 2017), DREADDs (Whissell et al., 2016), in vivo multiphoton imaging of various sensors (Broussard et al., 2014; Yang and Yuste, 2017), high-density electrophysiology (Buzsáki et al., 2015; Jun et al., 2017) and genome editing tools (Heidenreich and Zhang, 2016). Further, as we will outline in this review, it is possible to train rats to solve complex and demanding motor-cognitive tasks and precisely quantify (for example by high-speed videography, Rigosa et al., 2017; Nashaat et al., 2017) the kinematics of limb and whisker movements to investigate the temporal dynamics and outcome of decision making processes, spanning from known sensory input, across internal deliberation to final motor output (Ölveczky, 2011; Peters et al., 2017b; Svoboda and Li, 2018).

One obstacle to applying knowledge learned in rodents to understand primate cortex is that the correspondence between rodent and primate motor cortices is mostly unknown and that current naming schemes are inconsistent and confusing (Brecht, 2011). For example, tracing studies (Zingg et al., 2014) and classic delineation of rat frontal cortex by perithreshold intracortical microstimulation (Hall and Lindholm, 1974; Gioanni and Lamarche, 1985; Neafsey et al., 1986) suggests a large, somatotopically organized primary motor representation (“ratunculus”), that encompasses most of frontal cortex (Fig. 1A). However, the real picture is more complex and stimulation and anatomical tracing suggests, that forelimb movements, for example, are controlled by two, spatially segregated regions (caudal and rostral forelimb areas; Neafsey and Sievert, 1982; Rouiller et al., 1993; Fig. 1B). Nomenclature, that relies on comparative anatomy to name motor structures in the rat brain after their putative corresponding primate homologues, often suggest conflicting naming schemes. Thus, the same region of rat frontal cortex is referred to in the literature as primary vibrissa motor cortex (VMC; whisker M1; Brecht et al., 2004a,b; Berg and Kleinfeld, 2003; Hill et al., 2011; Ebbesen et al., 2017), secondary motor cortex (M2; a putative homolog of primate supplementary motor areas; Paxinos and Watson, 1982; Murakami et al., 2014, 2017; Mimica et al., 2018), the frontal orientation field (FOF; a putative homolog of the primate frontal eye field; Erlich et al., 2011; Hanks et al., 2015), frontal area 2 (FR2; Insanally et al., 2018), ventral frontal motor cortex (vFMCx; Lee et al., 2008) and medial agranular cortex (AGm; Smith and Alloway, 2013; Fig. 1C–E). In the mouse, the terminology is comparably varied and the same region also goes under several names, such as vibrissa/whisker motor cortex (vM1: Huber et al., 2012; wM1: Matyas et al., 2010; Sreenivasan et al., 2015; 2016), secondary motor cortex (M2; Schneider et al., 2014; Nelson and Mooney, 2016; Siniscalchi et al., 2016), medial agranular motor cortex (also M2; Nelson et al., 2013), frontal motor cortex (fMR; Goard et al., 2016), and secondary motor area (MOs; Allen Mouse Brain Atlas, Lein et al., 2007; Zingg et al., 2014). This variety of terminology is confusing and can hamper discovery and exchange both between primate and rodent researchers and within the rodent community.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Maps of rat frontal cortex. A, Delineation of rat frontal cortex by intracortical microstimulation suggests a large, somatotopically organized primary motor representation (a ratunculus, indicated by shaded area; dashed lines indicate primary somatosensory cortex; adapted with permission from Hall and Lindholm, 1974). B, Forelimb movements can be evoked by stimulation of a posterior zone (CFA) and an anterior spot (RFA; bregma indicated by dot Neafsey and Sievert, 1982; Rouiller et al., 1993). C, Some publications consider an anterior region of rat frontal cortex as M2 (a putative homolog of primate supplementary motor areas, red; Murakami et al., 2014, 2017). Other publications assign M2 to a much more posterior region (orange; Mimica et al., 2018). D, The regions of rat frontal cortex referred to in the literature as primary VMC (Berg and Kleinfeld, 2003; Brecht et al., 2004a,b; Hill et al., 2011; Ebbesen et al., 2017), FOF (a putative homolog of the primate FEF; Erlich et al., 2011; Hanks et al., 2015; Kopec et al., 2015) and FR2 (Insanally et al., 2018) overlap. E, Overlay of all the above regions.

Fortunately, the inconsistency in nomenclature has been beneficial in some ways. Because it is unclear which primate motor structures the various regions of rodent frontal cortex correspond to, this neuronal population has been investigated from very divergent vantage points, something that is actually rare in neuroscience, and implicated in a surprising variety of functions. Here, we review recent studies, which have investigated the role of rodent frontal cortex, in classic motor control of whisker and limb movements, in processing sensory stimuli, and in higher-order functions, such as motor decision-making, both in self-initiated action and in tasks, that require integration of sensory information over time. We conclude by highlighting major open questions and future directions.

Frontal control of whisker movements

A relatively large portion of rodent motor cortex is involved in whisker control. Active vibrissal touch is a major sensing strategy of rats and mice, small nocturnal mammals who live in dark tunnels. These animals have evolved highly specialized neural circuitry for expert control of whisker movements. Rats move their whiskers individually during active touch sensing (Welker, 1964; Sachdev et al., 2002; O'Connor et al., 2010; Zuo et al., 2011; Voigts et al., 2015), in anticipation of head turning (Towal and Hartmann, 2006) and during social interactions (Wolfe et al., 2011). The fine motor control for active vibrissal touch mirrors the fine motor control of primate and human fingertips (Diamond, 2010; Prescott et al., 2011). Analogous to the enlarged representation of digital movements in the primate and human motor homunculus (Leyton and Sherrington, 1917; Penfield and Boldrey, 1937), the vibrissa motor representation in frontal cortex (as assessed by intracortical microstimulation) is huge, taking up ∼6.5% of the whole cortical sheet (Hall and Lindholm, 1974; Gioanni and Lamarche, 1985; Neafsey et al., 1986; Zilles and Wree, 1995; Brecht et al., 2004a).

Similarly to circuits controlling locomotion (Franz and Lashley, 1917; Kiehn, 2006), the whisking rhythm is generated subcortically by a central pattern generator in the brainstem reticular formation (Gao et al., 2001; Moore et al., 2013; Deschênes et al., 2016), but the way by which the VMC modulates brainstem circuits to select behaviorally appropriate movement output is still an open question. Just like in the primate distal limb system (Cheney and Fetz, 1980), there is a monosynaptic corticomotoneuronal pathway from layer 5 of VMC onto motoneurons in the facial nucleus but, in contrast to the primate system, these direct connections are extremely sparse (Grinevich et al., 2005; Sreenivasan et al., 2015). The vast majority of descending axons from the VMC affect motoneurons oligosynaptically and terminate onto brainstem interneurons (Hattox et al., 2002; Grinevich et al., 2005; Sreenivasan et al., 2015; Jeong et al., 2016). In general, the relationship between VMC activity and whisking kinematics is surprisingly weak; much weaker, for example, than the tight correlations between M1 activity and distal limb movements in primates (Lemon, 2008) or rodents (Isomura et al., 2009; Miri et al., 2017). Early studies identified single VMC neurons, whose activity significantly correlated with whisking kinematics, but- in contrast to the primate (Georgopoulos et al., 1982, 1986)- there was no relationship between population activity and whisking (Carvell et al., 1996; Hill et al., 2011; Friedman et al., 2012; Gerdjikov et al., 2013).

A population pattern has only begun to emerge in recent studies. One recent study (Sreenivasan et al., 2016) looked at the laminar distribution of activity during whisking in head fixed mice, and found an overall decrease in the activity of layer 2/3 neurons during whisking. Neurons in layer 5 (corticofugal neurons) had a mixed response. At the population level, there was a tiny increase in the median, but a large increase in the mean layer 5 activity around the onset of whisking. This skewed firing rate distribution could indicate a role for a subpopulation of high-firing-rate VMC neurons in whisking initiation, perhaps analogous to how fast-spiking parvalbumin-expressing GABAergic neurons in forelimb motor cortex show strong increases around the onset of reaching movements (Estebanez et al., 2017). Another recent study investigated activity in layer 5 of VMC in freely moving rats during several types of self-initiated vibrissal behaviors: Exploratory whisking in the air, whisking to palpate objects and social whisking during facial interactions with conspecifics (Fig. 2A; Ebbesen et al., 2017). All whisking behaviors were associated with an ∼21% overall decrease in spike rates in layer 5 of VMC. Recordings from layer 5 VMC neurons in socially interacting rats revealed that social whisking was associated with reduced cellular excitability and membrane hyperpolarization, suggesting increased inhibition during whisking (Ebbesen et al., 2017). These observations suggest that VMC gates the subcortical whisking pattern generator, such that a decrease in descending cortical input to downstream brainstem targets ultimately leads to whisker protraction and disinhibits whisking (Deschênes et al., 2016; Ebbesen et al., 2017; Guest et al., 2018).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Investigating the role of VMC in the control of whisker movements. A, VMC activity decreases during various forms of whisking behavior. Left, Schematic depiction of vibrissal patterns at rest (whiskers retracted, no movement) and during bouts of exploratory whisking in air (whiskers protracted, moving). Right, Peristimulus time histogram of activity of a representative L5 VMC neuron aligned to the onset of free whisking (adapted with permission from Ebbesen et al., 2017). B, Intracellular activation of single VMC neurons elicits whisker retractions. Left, Labeled L6 VMC neuron (green, VMC; red, dendrites; blue, axon). Scale bar, 500 μm. Right, Example intracellular trace from the same neuron showing evoked action potentials (below) and the elicited retraction of an E-row whisker (top, f/b indicates forward/backward movements; adapted with permission from Brecht et al., 2004b). C, In rats, normal whisking consists of both forward and backward movements of the whiskers (black trace). Disinhibition of VMC by GABAA and GABAB antagonists elicits whisker retractions (red trace), which are time-locked to disinhibition-induced bouts of increased multiunit activity in motor cortex (adapted with permission from Castro-Alamancos, 2006). D, In intact rats, whisking is similar on both sides. After unilateral blockade of VMC, the contralateral whiskers move forward and their whisking power increases (adapted with permission from Ebbesen et al., 2017).

Several other observations align with this “suppressive motor control” interpretation, chiefly among them the curious fact that while the whisker musculature and vibrissal motoneurons are laid out for forward movement of whiskers (Dörfl, 1982; Klein and Rhoades, 1985; Herfst and Brecht, 2008; Haidarliu et al., 2010; 2014), intracortical microstimulation of layer 5 (Hall and Lindholm, 1974; Gioanni and Lamarche, 1985; Neafsey et al., 1986; Berg and Kleinfeld, 2003; Brecht et al., 2004a; Haiss and Schwarz, 2005; Ferezou et al., 2007; Tandon et al., 2008; Matyas et al., 2010; Ebbesen et al., 2017) and even stimulation of single pyramidal neurons (Fig. 2B; Brecht et al., 2004b) in VMC almost exclusively evokes whisker retraction, not, as perhaps expected (Graziano et al., 2002; Graziano, 2016), the behaviorally relevant forward whisker movements. Observations after optogenetic manipulation (Sreenivasan et al., 2015, 2016; Auffret et al., 2018) are more mixed (Wolff and Ölveczky, 2018). Similarly, disinhibition of VMC by GABA antagonists induces myoclonic whisker retractions, which are time-locked to bouts of disinhibition-induced increases in multiunit activity (Fig. 2C; Castro-Alamancos, 2006). Mirroring the effects of VMC activation, unilateral lesioning (Gao et al., 2003) and unilateral inactivation (Ebbesen et al., 2017) of VMC moves the contralateral whiskers forward and increases whisking contralaterally (Fig. 2D).

Frontal control of limb movements

Stimulation and tracing studies implicate two frontal regions in the control of forelimb movements: caudal forelimb area (CFA) and rostral forelimb area (RFA; Fig. 1B; Neafsey and Sievert, 1982; Rouiller et al., 1993; Tennant et al., 2011). Both areas are activated during skilled forelimb movement and are essential for the execution of trained limb movement (Hira et al., 2013; Brown and Teskey, 2014; Guo et al., 2015; Schiemann et al., 2015; Miri et al., 2017; Morandell and Huber, 2017; Galiñanes et al., 2018), but the relationship between movement and spiking activity is dynamic (Peters et al., 2014, 2017a) and is different between RFA and CFA. For example, activity in RFA, but not in CFA, is sensitive to behavioral context (Saiki et al., 2014), contralateral movement bias of activity is weaker in RFA than CFA (Soma et al., 2017), and activity in RFA, but not CFA, is larger for externally triggered movements than internally triggered movements (Kimura et al., 2017).

Some observations indicate that RFA is a premotor structure, that represents higher-order information about movements, whereas CFA encodes concrete motor information, such as motor commands to the musculoskeletal system. However, the similarity of activity patterns and the effects of stimulation in RFA and CFA suggest that they are part of a highly integrated computational unit (Hyland, 1998; Harrison et al., 2012; Saiki et al., 2014; Hira et al., 2015; Morandell and Huber, 2017; Wang et al., 2017). In both RFA and CFA, two major types of deep layer pyramidal neurons send their axons to other areas: intratelencephalic (IT-type) neurons project bilaterally to the cerebral cortex and striatum, whereas extratelencephalic (ET-type) neurons, project to the thalamus, spinal cord and other areas ipsilaterally (Harris and Shepherd, 2015; Baker et al., 2018). In a study, in which spike patterns in CFA and RFA were separated by projection targets (determined by optogenetic stimulation), ET-type neurons showed postspike suppression in spike autocorrelograms, which was independent of behavioral conditions (Saiki et al., 2018). The CFA ET-type neurons exhibited larger bias toward contralateral movement compared with RFA, and IT-type neurons had a large fraction of bilateral movement activity especially in RFA (Soma et al., 2017).

Sensory representations in frontal cortex

Motor planning requires the integration of sensory input to generate appropriate motor output. Accordingly, the frontal motor cortex is widely connected to sensory cortices, including auditory, visual, and somatosensory cortex (Reep et al., 1987; Hoover and Vertes, 2007; Barthas and Kwan, 2017). Somatosensory signals in frontal motor cortex have been widely explored. Several motor cortical neurons have low-latency, “S1”-like responses to whisker deflection (Kleinfeld et al., 2002; Ferezou et al., 2007; Huber et al., 2012; Smith and Alloway, 2013; Zagha et al., 2015) and tactile stimulation of forelimbs (Estebanez et al., 2017). In addition, there are strong recurrent corticocortical connections between VMC and barrel cortex, the primary whisker representation in S1 (Mao et al., 2011; Kinnischtzke et al., 2014, 2016). Motor cortical feedback modulates sensory processing in S1 (Zagha et al., 2013; Manita et al., 2015) and motor cortical activity facilitates sensory responses in barrel cortex and the thalamus (Lee et al., 2008). Imaging of axonal projections from M1 to layer 1 barrel cortex while mice performed an object localization task has shown that M1 neurons carry information about task-related variables, including touch (Petreanu et al., 2012). Moreover, several studies have shown that layer 2/3 M1 neurons respond to both touch stimuli (whisker-dependent object detection) and motor behaviors such as whisker movements or licking during sensory go/no-go tasks (Huber et al., 2012; Zagha et al., 2015).

In addition to touch responsive neurons, some motor cortical neurons respond to auditory stimuli. In two regions of ferret frontal motor cortex, the dorsal orbital gyrus (a putative homolog of primate dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; Duque and McCormick, 2010) and anterior sigmoid gyrus (a putative homolog of primate premotor cortex; Fritz et al., 2010), trial-averaged spiking activity is modulated by auditory stimuli (tones or clicks) during a conditioned avoidance task, but only weakly modulated in a passive context where auditory stimuli were presented before behavior (Fritz et al., 2010). Frontal cortical neurons that were auditory responsive showed both suppression and enhancement of spiking activity to the target tone. Auditory-evoked responses have also been reported in mouse motor cortex during reaching (Estebanez et al., 2017) and licking (Siniscalchi et al., 2016) tasks. In the anterior part of mouse motor cortex, auditory-evoked responses are modulated by behavioral context (Siniscalchi et al., 2016). Auditory representations are present in PV+ forelimb M1 neurons in the absence of sound-triggered movements, suggesting that sensory input alone can drive M1 neurons (Estebanez et al., 2017). Interestingly, PV+ neurons in M1 are not indiscriminately driven by sensory input as the proportion of neurons that can be modulated by somatosensory input is greater than the proportion of neurons that are auditory-responsive suggesting a dissociation in sensory signals that can modulate PV+ cells in M1 (Estebanez et al., 2017).

There are corticocortical connections between auditory cortex and mouse secondary motor cortex (Nelson et al., 2013; Nelson and Mooney, 2016) that contribute to suppressing sound-evoked responses in auditory cortex during locomotion (Schneider et al., 2014). These connections might be important for disambiguating self-generated sounds from other sounds in the environment (Schneider and Mooney, 2015), but motor cortex might also participate more directly in auditory processing. A recent study found that neurons in rat FR2 (Fig. 1D) were more informative about task-relevant auditory stimuli than auditory cortical neurons (Insanally et al., 2018). Although auditory cortex reliably responds to pure tones in untrained animals, when tones take on behavioral significance (i.e., when the animal is trained to respond to tones for food reward) stimulus information is more prevalent and pervasive in frontal cortex. An interspike-interval-based decoder revealed that cells that appeared to be choice-selective when viewed at the level of the trial-averaged firing rate (i.e., cells that displayed “ramping activity”) were found to be highly stimulus selective on single trials (Insanally et al., 2018).

Although it is well established that primate frontal cortices play a major role in visual sensorimotor transformations (Hatsopoulos and Suminski, 2011), we still know little about how rodent frontal motor cortices contribute to the processing of visual stimuli. Corticocortical projections from rodent frontal cortex relay motor-related signals to primary visual cortex (Zhang et al., 2014; Leinweber et al., 2017) and there are reciprocal connections between frontal motor cortex and higher visual areas (Itokazu et al., 2018). Frontal motor cortical neurons modulate their activity during the presentation of visual stimuli (Goard et al., 2016; Itokazu et al., 2018). However, population decoding did not provide significant information about the type of visual stimulus (horizontal vs vertical drifting gratings) in a go/no-go task (Goard et al., 2016). In a study where rats had to integrate sensory evidence in LED flashes, neurons in rat frontal motor cortex exhibited transient responses to visual stimulation and also encoded the amount of sensory evidence provided (Scott et al., 2017). Whether information about visual stimuli is embedded in spike timing (as was the case for auditory signals in rat FR2) remains an open question.

Together, these results suggest that motor cortex plays an important role in the processing of sensory input across several sensory modalities. Sensory signals in motor cortex might provide important feedback about ongoing motor programs for tuning motor output in the short term. In the long term, sensory feedback may be important for motor learning and behavioral strategizing, more generally. Lesion studies point to an important role of rodent frontal cortex in the learning of motor tasks (Huber et al., 2012; Kawai et al., 2015; Zagha et al., 2015) and motor cortical activity is reorganized across motor leaning (Laubach et al., 2000; Komiyama et al., 2010; Huber et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2014, 2017a; Makino et al., 2017; Miri et al., 2017; for review, see Peters et al., 2017b).

Ruling out covert muscular responses during sensory stimulation is difficult and seemingly “sensory” responses in motor cortices may actually be “motor” responses (e.g., preparatory activity, a gated movement or subtle, unnoticed movements). On the other hand, both somatosensory and motor cortex receive direct thalamic input (Deschênes et al., 1998; Ohno et al., 2012; Hooks et al., 2015), both areas project to the spinal cord and brainstem (Catsman-Berrevoets and Kuypers, 1976; Groos et al., 1978; Sreenivasan et al., 2015) and stimulation of either area elicits movements with low latency (Leyton and Sherrington, 1917; Penfield and Boldrey, 1937; Gioanni and Lamarche, 1985; Neafsey et al., 1986; Matyas et al., 2010; Sreenivasan et al., 2015), pointing to a role for both areas in motor control and sensory integration.

Frontal control of action timing

Motor control and decision-making involves not only choosing among multiple alternative options but also deciding when to act. Murakami et al. (2014) studied a role of rat secondary motor cortex in the action timing decision (M2; Fig. 1C). They used a waiting time decision task, where a rat had to decide how long to keep waiting for a delayed reward and when to give up and act for an immediately available, but less valuable option. Neural recording from M2 during this behavioral task revealed that firing rates in a subpopulation of M2 neurons encode the animal's waiting time. Such a firing-rate-based representation can feed into an integrator circuit, and be transformed into ramping activity and a mechanism to detect threshold crossing of the ramping activity could serve to generate a movement signal, at the end of a waiting period. Consistent with a role in an integration-to-threshold process, the authors found ramping activity during the waiting period, which reached a threshold level at the time of “give-up” behavior (Ratcliff, 1978; Gold and Shadlen, 2007). A similar neural signal of action timing is observed in primate premotor cortices in various contexts, for example ramp-to-threshold like responses in sensory decision tasks (Ding and Gold, 2012) and timing tasks (Lebedev et al., 2008; Mita et al., 2009). This suggests a conserved premotor mechanism, both in rodents and primates, in deciding and planning timing of future actions.

In contrast to M2, where a significant fraction of neurons encode waiting time in single trials, neurons in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC; a major input structure of M2) contained very few neurons encoding the trial-to-trial waiting times (Murakami et al., 2017). Instead, mPFC neurons only encoded a slowly fluctuating component of waiting-time variability, a decision bias to wait shorter or longer, which fluctuated over >10 trials, and was modulated by previous experience. This finding is in line with the idea that higher-order areas, such as the PFC, can integrate information over time as well as space more extensively than lower sensory cortical areas (Hasson et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2014), and extends this idea to a motor domain: The prefrontal cortex contains information about decision biases or strategies that are adjusted slowly over time according to past integrated experiences and/or internal states, but it cares less about planning imminent actions. Instead, more dedicated motor areas, such as M2, are critical in planning what to do next and when to execute it, based on top-down influences from prefrontal areas.

Frontal role in planning orienting movements

The existence of a homolog of the primate frontal eye field (FEF) in rat frontal cortex was first suggested by Leonard (1969), based on similarities in connectivity with subcortical areas. Lesion (Reep et al., 2004) and microstimulation (Sinnamon and Galer, 1984) data supported that hypothesis. This may seem surprising, given that rats are not known for their visual abilities (Yilmaz and Meister, 2013; but see Seabrook et al., 2017). However, the primate FEF is not an “eye” field, but rather a “gaze” field or an orienting field. Microstimulation of FEF in animals who can freely move their heads generates coordinated head-eye movements (Knight and Fuchs, 2007) and the human FEF is activated when remembering spatial locations behind the head (Tark and Curtis, 2009). All bilaterally symmetric animals need to plan and generate orienting movements to actively sense the world (Ocaña et al., 2015). With that in mind, the idea of a homolog, a rat FOF, to the (poorly named) FEF seems less absurd.

To further investigate this homology Erlich et al. (2011) trained rats on a memory-guided orienting task (MGO) inspired by the classically FEF-dependent memory-guided saccade task (Funahashi et al., 1991; Chafee and Goldman-Rakic, 1998; Dias and Segraves, 1999). In the MGO task, rats must fixate during the presentation of a brief auditory cue (e.g., low-frequency = go left, high-frequency = go right) and during a subsequent memory delay period (Fig. 3A). After a go cue, rats are rewarded if they orient to the correct side. Given that FOF is also VMC, Erlich et al. (2011) performed several control experiments to determine whether the rats were using a whisker strategy to perform the task. Neither shaving off the mystacial whiskers nor injecting lidocaine into the whisker pad on one side had a significant effect on behavior in well trained animals. Moreover, using video analysis, they showed that during the memory period the whiskers were retracted and rhythmic whisking was suppressed even as activity was ramping up (consistent with the findings described in “Frontal control of whisker movements”; Ebbesen et al., 2017).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Investigating the role of the FOF in motor planning in two short-term memory decision making tasks. A, MGO task structure. B, Unilateral inactivation of FOF with halorhodopsin. Inactivation period denoted by the horizontal extent of the bar. Choice bias magnitude reported relative to the hemisphere being inactivated. *p < 0.05. Inactivation of FOF during the MGO task biases choices most if it occurs early during the cue presentation. C, Neural encoding of the direction of the upcoming motor response grows monotonically in FOF during cue presentation and the short-term memory delay period. Solid lines show normalized firing rate in trials resulting in an orienting motion contralateral to the recorded neurons, minus normalized firing rate in trials resulting in an ipsilateral orienting motion (blue, average of n = 50 contralateral-preferring neurons; red, 39 ipsi-preferring neurons). Dashed lines are ±SEM. Data are reanalyzed from Erlich et al. (2011) and from correct trials only. D, Poisson Clicks task structure. E, Same as B, but for the Clicks task. Inactivation of FOF during the Clicks task biases choices only if it overlaps the end of the cue presentation. F, Average normalized firing rate of neurons in FOF as a function of the accumulated value of clicks (#Left − #Right) and the time during the stimulus. Firing rates tend to fall into two stable clusters, indicating the accumulated value is less than (greater than) 0 at that moment in time and a right (left) response is preferred. G, Bistable attractor network model capable of replicating findings from FOF during the MGO task. Two populations of neurons whose activity signals a leftward or rightward orienting movement, self excite and mutually inhibit, and are composed of neurons from the FOF and other brain areas. Ex, External drive. Deep attractors stably encode information during the delay period but are more resistant to perturbation. H, Same as G, but for the Clicks task. Shallow attractors allow for a flexible motor plan, which can be updated as new information is integrated and allow the network to recover from early perturbations. A–C, G, Adapted with permission from Kopec et al. (2015). E, F, Adapted with permission from Hanks et al. (2015).

Unilateral pharmacological inactivation of FOF resulted in an ipsilateral bias, similar to findings in primate FEF (Sommer et al., 1997; Dias and Segraves, 1999). Furthermore, neural activity during the memory-period predicted the upcoming choice of the animal, with neural encoding of the upcoming motor response that was low during the sensory cue, and gradually increased during the memory delay period (Fig. 3C). Temporally precise unilateral optogenetic inactivation (halorhodopsin, eNpHR3.0) of the FOF revealed that inactivation during the first half of the cue period, the time of minimal information encoding, resulted in the largest ipsilateral choice bias, whereas inactivation during the second half of the memory period, the time of maximal information encoding, resulted in the smallest choice bias (Fig. 3B). Inactivation during the motor action resulted in no bias or change in movement kinetics (Kopec et al., 2015).

To further investigate the role of FOF in orienting decisions, rats were also trained on a gradual accumulation of evidence task, the Poisson Clicks task (Brunton et al., 2013), similar to the primate random dot motion accumulation task (Shadlen and Newsome, 1996). In the Clicks task the cue consisted of two independent streams of Poisson timed auditory clicks with different underlying rates, presented from speakers to the animal's left and right, after which the rat must respond to the side that played more clicks (Fig. 3D). Only inactivation that overlapped the end of the auditory cue and fixation period resulted in a choice bias (Fig. 3E; Hanks et al., 2015).

The different inactivation effect timings between the MGO and Poisson Clicks tasks can be reconciled as due to the different demand for flexibility in the movement plan. In the Clicks task the randomly varying Poisson click times require a movement plan which can be updated as new information is accumulated. In the MGO task, on the other hand, the click train is periodic and there is no new information during the delay, so a rigid and robust movement plan is more appropriate.

Results from both tasks could be replicated by modeling the FOF as a bistable attractor network (Machens et al., 2005; Wong and Wang, 2006). In the MGO task the network rapidly falls into one of two strong basins of attraction required to maintain the information during the memory delay period (Fig. 3G). As the network settles, the information encoding increases (Erlich et al., 2011), and the network becomes more resistant to perturbation (Kopec et al., 2015). A similar model but with weaker attractors (Fig. 3H) is capable of replicating findings during the Poisson Clicks task (Erlich et al., 2015; Piet et al., 2017). Incoming information could more easily move the network between two categorical states, consistent with recordings of neurons in the FOF during the Clicks task (Fig. 3F; Hanks et al., 2015). This allowed the network to use information from the entire click train, implementing a flexible plan, which allows it to recover from perturbations early in the stimulus.

Despite the apparent parsimony of this description, many questions remain. According to these models, the FOF is just one element in a distributed network for planning orienting movements (Kopec et al., 2015). The superior colliculus has been identified as another key element, but possibly other prefrontal cortical areas (for planning directional licks, see Chen et al., 2017; Svoboda and Li, 2018) or subcortical regions such as thalamus and basal ganglia (Yartsev et al., 2018) play an important role as well. Moreover, the models do not explain the heterogeneity observed in the firing patterns of FOF neurons (Erlich et al., 2011; Hanks et al., 2015). Cell-type-specific recording and laminar recordings would create important constraints on future models.

Conclusion and future directions

In this review, we summarized some recent investigations into the mechanisms by which rodent frontal cortex contributes to: active-sensing with whisking, preparation and execution of limb movements, sensory-coding, and preparation and execution of orienting movements. While the cortical regions subserving limb movements (CFA and RFA) are fairly well demarcated (Fig. 1A), the other functions reviewed are all found in a highly overlapping region of rat motor cortex (Fig. 1D–E). Is the diversity of function revealed here a specialty of rat frontal cortex? It is tempting to speculate that the smaller brain of the rodent (compared with human or macaque) creates less pressure for wiring efficiency (Chklovskii et al., 2002) and this results in neurons with distinct functional roles intermixed in the cortical surface. Thus, although the enlarged whisker representation in rodent motor cortex (Fig. 1A) mirrors the enlarged distal limb representation in primate M1, the same area also shares similarities with other frontal premotor structures in the primate brain.

A possible role of rodent frontal cortex in tuning (Hill et al., 2011; Friedman et al., 2012; Gerdjikov et al., 2013) and initiating (Sreenivasan et al., 2016) whisker movements is similar to motor control by primate M1, but a prominent role in whisker movement suppression (Ebbesen et al., 2017) is not. In humans and primates, other prefrontal and frontal structures than M1 are paramount for behavioral inhibition and movement suppression (Miller, 2000; Kim and Lee, 2011). For example, neurons in the supplementary eye field play an important role in saccade suppression and countermanding (Schall et al., 2002; Carpenter, 2004; Stuphorn et al., 2010; Shadmehr, 2017) and the presupplementary and supplementary motor areas (SMA) are crucial for voluntary movement inhibition (Nachev et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2010; Wardak, 2011; Filevich et al., 2012a,b). Similarly to how VMC lesions (Gao et al., 2003) or inactivation (Ebbesen et al., 2017) increases whisking, lesions to the SMA evokes involuntary, “alien” movements in humans (Brainin et al., 2008). Further investigations of movement suppression by rat motor cortex could be a way to explore the evolutionary origins of behavioral inhibition by frontal cortex more generally (Laubach et al., 2015; Barthas and Kwan, 2017; Ebbesen and Brecht, 2017).

Similar to the control of vibrissal touch by rat motor cortices, the primate FEF is involved in active-sensing (i.e., visual search; Bichot et al., 2001). Like rat motor cortices, the FEF contains neurons with short-latency sensory responses (Joiner et al., 2017). During action timing and perceptual decision-making, some FEF neurons ramp to threshold before an orienting response (Ding and Gold, 2012) and encode cognitive aspects of decision-making (Teichert et al., 2014). Similar to rat motor cortices during orienting movements, the FEF can be modeled with attractor dynamics (Wimmer et al., 2014). Despite these similarities there are also important differences. The primate FEF plays a direct role in eye movements and visuospatial attention (Moore and Fallah, 2001; Noudoost and Moore, 2011; Gregoriou et al., 2014) and provides an attention-like modulation of visual cortical activity (Moore and Armstrong, 2003; Ekstrom et al., 2008). The tight integration between primate FEF and the oculomotor system is mirrored by similar observations on the human FEF (Grosbras and Paus, 2002) and by studies on the forebrain gaze-control area of the barn owl (a putative avian homolog of primate FEF; Winkowski and Knudsen, 2006; Knudsen, 2007). Like the primate FEF (Merrikhi et al., 2017), rodent frontal motor cortex modulates the activity of the superior colliculus and both primary and higher-order visual areas (Zhang et al., 2014; Leinweber et al., 2017; Itokazu et al., 2018), but, as outlined in this review, unlike primate FEF, rodent frontal motor cortex is much more integrated with the whisker somatomotor system than with the visual system.

The differences between the results in primate FEF and rodent frontal motor cortex may be related to sensorimotor specializations. The FEF has mostly been studied in humans and monkeys, species with foveal vision. For animals with fovea, the target of fixation is almost always the focus of attention and cognition. The peripheral visual system determines how to shift that focus. This generates strong pressure for a tight connection between visual input and the orienting system. As mentioned, rats and mice are adapted for navigating in burrows. Their mystacial whiskers are analogous to the peripheral visual system and their micro-vibrissa (the small whiskers around the mouth and nose) are analogous to foveal vision (Grant et al., 2012). A dangerous object (e.g., a snake) detected via the mystacial whiskers should lead to rapid orienting away from the object. Conversely, a delicious object (e.g., a cricket) should lead to rapid orienting toward that object (Anjum et al., 2006). Thus, as the primate FEF directs spatial attention through its close integration with the visual and oculomotor systems, this region of rodent motor cortex can be considered an orientation field, directing spatial attention through its close integration with the whisker and orienting systems. However, it is well documented that primate FEF plays a role in spatial working memory and spatial attention even when subjects are not planning a movement (Tark and Curtis, 2009; Squire et al., 2013). It remains to be seen whether this is also true of rodent FOF.

This idea fits well with other observations. For example, while the primate superior colliculus is a primarily visuomotor structure (Basso and May, 2017), the rodent superior colliculus plays a major role in integrating vibrissal touch information and controlling vibrissa movement (Miyashita and Mori, 1995; Hemelt and Keller, 2007, 2008; Bezdudnaya and Castro-Alamancos, 2014). In line with a role in head and whisker orienting, head and neck posture modulates activity in rodent frontal motor cortex (Mimica et al., 2018). Moreover, because orienting the whisker field toward a stimulus left or right of the snout requires retracting the whiskers on one side and bringing the whiskers on the opposite side forward, this might help explain why rodent frontal motor cortex field appears so heavily involved in whisker retraction (Ebbesen et al., 2017).

Rodents have great potential as comparative model organisms in motor research. To unlock this potential, it is vital to maintain a broad ethological perspective (Krakauer et al., 2017) and remember two key points: (1) Rodents are not small primates, but have distinct sensorimotor specializations. Neural circuits for control of foveal vision in primates may be mirrored by circuits for sensing by active vibrissal touch in mice and rats. (2) In contrast to sharply delineated motor structures in primates, rodent cortical boundaries are blurry and cortical areas overlap. The same region of rat frontal cortex (Fig. 1C–E) shares similarities with multiple motor and premotor structures in the primate brain (e.g., M1, SMA, and FEF). With these points in mind, investigations of rodent motor cortices, such as the ones reviewed here, can help advance our understanding of the evolution and specialization of neural circuits for sensorimotor cognition across phylogeny.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by The Novo Nordisk Foundation (C.L.E.); NYU Provost's Postdoctoral Fellowship and NIDCD K99/R00 Pathway to Independence Award DC015543-01A1 (M.N.I.); F32 MH098572/MH/NIMH NIH HHS/USA, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute/USA (C.D.K.); Uehara Memorial Foundation, Fundação Bial 127/08 and Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BPD/46314/2008 (M.M.); JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP18J01678 and JP17K12703 (A.S.); and Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader 15XD1503000 and Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality 15JC1400104 (J.C.E.).

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Christian Ebbesen, New York University, 540 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016. christian.ebbesen{at}nyumc.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Anjum F,
    2. Turni H,
    3. Mulder PG,
    4. van der Burg J,
    5. Brecht M
    (2006) Tactile guidance of prey capture in etruscan shrews. Proc Natl Acad Sci U SA 103:16544–16549. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605573103 pmid:17060642
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Asanuma H
    (1975) Recent developments in the study of the columnar arrangement of neurons within the motor cortex. Physiol Rev 55:143–156. doi:10.1152/physrev.1975.55.2.143 pmid:806927
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Auffret M,
    2. Ravano VL,
    3. Rossi GMC,
    4. Hankov N,
    5. Petersen MFA,
    6. Petersen CCH
    (2018) Optogenetic stimulation of cortex to map evoked whisker movements in awake head-restrained mice. Neuroscience 368:199–213. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.004 pmid:28412497
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Baker A,
    2. Kalmbach B,
    3. Morishima M,
    4. Kim J,
    5. Juavinett A,
    6. Li N,
    7. Dembrow N
    (2018) Specialized subpopulations of deep-layer pyramidal neurons in the neocortex: bridging cellular properties to functional consequences. J Neurosci 38:5441–5455. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0150-18.2018 pmid:29798890
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Barthas F,
    2. Kwan AC
    (2017) Secondary motor cortex: where “sensory” meets “motor” in the rodent frontal cortex. Trends Neurosci 40:181–193. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2016.11.006 pmid:28012708
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Basso MA,
    2. May PJ
    (2017) Circuits for action and cognition: a view from the superior colliculus. Annu Rev Vis Sci 3:197–226. doi:10.1146/annurev-vision-102016-061234 pmid:28617660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Berg RW,
    2. Kleinfeld D
    (2003) Vibrissa movement elicited by rhythmic electrical microstimulation to motor cortex in the aroused rat mimics exploratory whisking. J Neurophysiol 90:2950–2963. doi:10.1152/jn.00511.2003 pmid:12904336
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Bezdudnaya T,
    2. Castro-Alamancos MA
    (2014) Neuromodulation of whisking related neural activity in superior colliculus. J Neurosci 34:7683–7695. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0444-14.2014 pmid:24872572
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Bichot NP,
    2. Thompson KG,
    3. Chenchal Rao S,
    4. Schall JD
    (2001) Reliability of macaque frontal eye field neurons signaling saccade targets during visual search. J Neurosci 21:713–725. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-02-00713.2001 pmid:11160450
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Brainin M,
    2. Seiser A,
    3. Matz K
    (2008) The mirror world of motor inhibition: the alien hand syndrome in chronic stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 79:246–252. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2007.116046 pmid:17578857
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Brecht M
    (2011) Movement, confusion, and orienting in frontal cortices. Neuron 72:193–196. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.002 pmid:22017982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Brecht M,
    2. Krauss A,
    3. Muhammad S,
    4. Sinai-Esfahani L,
    5. Bellanca S,
    6. Margrie TW
    (2004a) Organization of rat vibrissa motor cortex and adjacent areas according to cytoarchitectonics, microstimulation, and intracellular stimulation of identified cells. J Comp Neurol 479:360–373. doi:10.1002/cne.20306 pmid:15514982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brecht M,
    2. Schneider M,
    3. Sakmann B,
    4. Margrie TW
    (2004b) Whisker movements evoked by stimulation of single pyramidal cells in rat motor cortex. Nature 427:704–710. doi:10.1038/nature02266 pmid:14973477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Broussard GJ,
    2. Liang R,
    3. Tian L
    (2014) Monitoring activity in neural circuits with genetically encoded indicators. Front Mol Neurosci 7:97. doi:10.3389/fnmol.2014.00097 pmid:25538558
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Brown AR,
    2. Teskey GC
    (2014) Motor cortex is functionally organized as a set of spatially distinct representations for complex movements. J Neurosci 34:13574–13585. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2500-14.2014 pmid:25297087
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Brunton BW,
    2. Botvinick MM,
    3. Brody CD
    (2013) Rats and humans can optimally accumulate evidence for decision-making. Science 340:95–98. doi:10.1126/science.1233912 pmid:23559254
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Buzsáki G,
    2. Stark E,
    3. Berényi A,
    4. Khodagholy D,
    5. Kipke DR,
    6. Yoon E,
    7. Wise KD
    (2015) Tools for probing local circuits: high-density silicon probes combined with optogenetics. Neuron 86:92–105. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.01.028 pmid:25856489
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Carpenter RH
    (2004) Supplementary eye field: keeping an eye on eye movement. Curr Biol 14:R416–418. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.032 pmid:15182687
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Carvell GE,
    2. Miller SA,
    3. Simons DJ
    (1996) The relationship of vibrissal motor cortex unit activity to whisking in the awake rat. Somatosens Mot Res 13:115–127. doi:10.3109/08990229609051399 pmid:8844960
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Castro-Alamancos MA
    (2006) Vibrissa myoclonus (rhythmic retractions) driven by resonance of excitatory networks in motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 96:1691–1698. doi:10.1152/jn.00454.2006 pmid:16807344
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Catsman-Berrevoets CE,
    2. Kuypers HG
    (1976) Cells of origin of cortical projections to dorsal column nuclei, spinal cord and bulbar medial reticular formation in the rhesus monkey. Neurosci Lett 3:245–252. doi:10.1016/0304-3940(76)90050-1 pmid:19604894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Chafee MV,
    2. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (1998) Matching patterns of activity in primate prefrontal area 8a and parietal area 7ip neurons during a spatial working memory task. J Neurophysiol 79:2919–2940. doi:10.1152/jn.1998.79.6.2919 pmid:9636098
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Chen X,
    2. Scangos KW,
    3. Stuphorn V
    (2010) Supplementary motor area exerts proactive and reactive control of arm movements. J Neurosci 30:14657–14675. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2669-10.2010 pmid:21048123
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Cheney PD,
    2. Fetz EE
    (1980) Functional classes of primate corticomotoneuronal cells and their relation to active force. J Neurophysiol 44:773–791. doi:10.1152/jn.1980.44.4.773 pmid:6253605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Chen TW,
    2. Li N,
    3. Daie K,
    4. Svoboda K
    (2017) A map of anticipatory activity in mouse motor cortex. Neuron 94:866–879.e4. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.005 pmid:28521137
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Chklovskii DB,
    2. Schikorski T,
    3. Stevens CF
    (2002) Wiring optimization in cortical circuits. Neuron 34:341–347. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00679-7 pmid:11988166
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Deisseroth K
    (2015) Optogenetics: 10 years of microbial opsins in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 18:1213–1225. doi:10.1038/nn.4091 pmid:26308982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Deschênes M,
    2. Takatoh J,
    3. Kurnikova A,
    4. Moore JD,
    5. Demers M,
    6. Elbaz M,
    7. Furuta T,
    8. Wang F,
    9. Kleinfeld D
    (2016) Inhibition, not excitation, drives rhythmic whisking. Neuron 90:374–387. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.007 pmid:27041498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Deschênes M,
    2. Veinante P,
    3. Zhang ZW
    (1998) The organization of corticothalamic projections: reciprocity versus parity. Brain Res Rev 28: 286–308. doi:10.1016/S0165-0173(98)00017-4 pmid:9858751
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Diamond ME
    (2010) Texture sensation through the fingertips and the whiskers. Curr Opin Neurobiol 20:319–327. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.03.004 pmid:20403683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Dias EC,
    2. Segraves MA
    (1999) Muscimol-induced inactivation of monkey frontal eye field: effects on visually and memory-guided saccades. J Neurophysiol 81:2191–2214. doi:10.1152/jn.1999.81.5.2191 pmid:10322059
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ding L,
    2. Gold JI
    (2012) Neural correlates of perceptual decision making before, during, and after decision commitment in monkey frontal eye field. Cereb Cortex 22:1052–1067. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr178 pmid:21765183
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. di Pellegrino G,
    2. Fadiga L,
    3. Fogassi L,
    4. Gallese V,
    5. Rizzolatti G
    (1992) Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Exp Brain Res 91:176–180. doi:10.1007/BF00230027 pmid:1301372
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Dörfl J
    (1982) The musculature of the mystacial vibrissae of the white mouse. J Anat 135:147–154. pmid:7130049
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Duque A,
    2. McCormick DA
    (2010) Circuit-based localization of ferret prefrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex 20:1020–1036. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp164 pmid:19737780
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Dushanova J,
    2. Donoghue J
    (2010) Neurons in primary motor cortex engaged during action observation. Eur J Neurosci 31:386–398. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07067.x pmid:20074212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ebbesen CL,
    2. Brecht M
    (2017) Motor cortex: to act or not to act? Nat Rev Neurosci 18:694–705. doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.119 pmid:29042690
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Ebbesen CL,
    2. Doron G,
    3. Lenschow C,
    4. Brecht M
    (2017) Vibrissa motor cortex activity suppresses contralateral whisking behavior. Nat Neurosci 20:82–89. doi:10.1038/nn.4437 pmid:27798633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Ekstrom LB,
    2. Roelfsema PR,
    3. Arsenault JT,
    4. Bonmassar G,
    5. Vanduffel W
    (2008) Bottom-up dependent gating visual cortex. Science 321:414–417. doi:10.1126/science.1153276 pmid:18635806
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Erlich JC,
    2. Bialek M,
    3. Brody CD
    (2011) A cortical substrate for memory-guided orienting in the rat. Neuron 72:330–343. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.07.010 pmid:22017991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Erlich JC,
    2. Brunton BW,
    3. Duan CA,
    4. Hanks TD,
    5. Brody CD
    (2015) Distinct effects of prefrontal and parietal cortex inactivations on an accumulation of evidence task in the rat. eLife 4:e05457. doi:10.7554/eLife.05457 pmid:25869470
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Estebanez L,
    2. Hoffmann D,
    3. Voigt BC,
    4. Poulet JFA
    (2017) Parvalbumin-expressing GABAergic neurons in primary motor cortex signal reaching. Cell Rep 20:308–318. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.06.044 pmid:28700934
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Evarts EV
    (1968) Relation of pyramidal tract activity to force exerted during voluntary movement. J Neurophysiol 31:14–27. doi:10.1152/jn.1968.31.1.14 pmid:4966614
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Ferezou I,
    2. Haiss F,
    3. Gentet LJ,
    4. Aronoff R,
    5. Weber B,
    6. Petersen CC
    (2007) Spatiotemporal dynamics of cortical sensorimotor integration in behaving mice. Neuron 56:907–923. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.007 pmid:18054865
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Fetz EE
    (1992) Are movement parameters recognizable coded in the activity of single neurons? Behav Brain Sci 15:679–690. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00072599
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. ↵
    1. Filevich E,
    2. Kühn S,
    3. Haggard P
    (2012a) Intentional inhibition in human action: the power of “no”. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 36:1107–1118. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.01.006 pmid:22305996
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Filevich E,
    2. Kühn S,
    3. Haggard P
    (2012b) Negative motor phenomena in cortical stimulation: implications for inhibitory control of human action. Cortex 48:1251–1261. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.014 pmid:22658707
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Franz SI,
    2. Lashley KS
    (1917) The retention of habits by the rat after destruction of the frontal portion of the cerebrum. Psychobiology 1:3–18. doi:10.1037/h0074177
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. ↵
    1. Friedman WA,
    2. Zeigler HP,
    3. Keller A
    (2012) Vibrissae motor cortex unit activity during whisking. J Neurophysiol 107:551–563. doi:10.1152/jn.01132.2010 pmid:21994257
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Fritz JB,
    2. David SV,
    3. Radtke-Schuller S,
    4. Yin P,
    5. Shamma SA
    (2010) Adaptive, behaviorally gated, persistent encoding of task-relevant auditory information in ferret frontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 13:1011–1019. doi:10.1038/nn.2598 pmid:20622871
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Funahashi S,
    2. Bruce CJ,
    3. Goldman-Rakic PS
    (1991) Neuronal activity related to saccadic eye movements in the monkey's dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. J Neurophysiol 65:1464–1483. doi:10.1152/jn.1991.65.6.1464 pmid:1875255
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Galiñanes GL,
    2. Bonardi C,
    3. Huber D
    (2018) Directional reaching for water as a cortex-dependent behavioral framework for mice. Cell Rep 22:2767–2783. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.042 pmid:29514103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Gao P,
    2. Bermejo R,
    3. Zeigler HP
    (2001) Whisker deafferentation and rodent whisking patterns: behavioral evidence for a central pattern generator. J Neurosci 21:5374–5380. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-14-05374.2001 pmid:11438614
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Gao P,
    2. Hattox AM,
    3. Jones LM,
    4. Keller A,
    5. Zeigler HP
    (2003) Whisker motor cortex ablation and whisker movement patterns. Somatosens Mot Res 20:191–198. doi:10.1080/08990220310001622924 pmid:14675958
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Georgopoulos AP,
    2. Kalaska JF,
    3. Caminiti R,
    4. Massey JT
    (1982) On the relations between the direction of two-dimensional arm movements and cell discharge in primate motor cortex. J Neurosci 2:1527–1537. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.02-11-01527.1982 pmid:7143039
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Georgopoulos AP,
    2. Schwartz AB,
    3. Kettner RE
    (1986) Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science 233:1416–1419. doi:10.1126/science.3749885 pmid:3749885
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Gerdjikov TV,
    2. Haiss F,
    3. Rodriguez-Sierra OE,
    4. Schwarz C
    (2013) Rhythmic whisking area (RW) in rat primary motor cortex: an internal monitor of movement-related signals? J Neurosci 33:14193–14204. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0337-13.2013 pmid:23986253
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Gioanni Y,
    2. Lamarche M
    (1985) A reappraisal of rat motor cortex organization by intracortical microstimulation. Brain Res 344:49–61. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(85)91188-6 pmid:4041868
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Goard MJ,
    2. Pho GN,
    3. Woodson J,
    4. Sur M
    (2016) Distinct roles of visual, parietal, and frontal motor cortices in memory-guided sensorimotor decisions. eLife 5:e13764. doi:10.7554/eLife.13764 pmid:27490481
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Gold JI,
    2. Shadlen MN
    (2007) The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:535–574. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038 pmid:17600525
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. ↵
    1. Grant RA,
    2. Sperber AL,
    3. Prescott TJ
    (2012) The role of orienting in vibrissal touch sensing. Front Behav Neurosci 6:39. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00039 pmid:22787445
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Graziano MSA
    (2016) Ethological action maps: a paradigm shift for the motor cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 20:121–132. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.008 pmid:26628112
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Graziano MS,
    2. Taylor CS,
    3. Moore T
    (2002) Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron 34:841–851. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00698-0 pmid:12062029
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Gregoriou GG,
    2. Rossi AF,
    3. Ungerleider LG,
    4. Desimone R
    (2014) Lesions of prefrontal cortex reduce attentional modulation of neuronal responses and synchrony in V4. Nat Neurosci 17:1003–1011. doi:10.1038/nn.3742 pmid:24929661
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Grinevich V,
    2. Brecht M,
    3. Osten P
    (2005) Monosynaptic pathway from rat vibrissa motor cortex to facial motor neurons revealed by lentivirus-based axonal tracing. J Neurosci 25:8250–8258. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2235-05.2005 pmid:16148232
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. ↵
    1. Groos WP,
    2. Ewing LK,
    3. Carter CM,
    4. Coulter JD
    (1978) Organization of corticospinal neurons in the cat. Brain Res 143:393–419. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(78)90353-0 pmid:348267
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Grosbras MH,
    2. Paus T
    (2002) Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human frontal eye field: effects on visual perception and attention. J Cogn Neurosci 14:1109–1120. doi:10.1162/089892902320474553 pmid:12419133
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Guest JM,
    2. Seetharama MM,
    3. Wendel ES,
    4. Strick PL,
    5. Oberlaender M
    (2018) 3D reconstruction and standardization of the rat facial nucleus for precise mapping of vibrissal motor networks. Neuroscience 368:171–186. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.09.031 pmid:28958919
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Guo JZ,
    2. Graves AR,
    3. Guo WW,
    4. Zheng J,
    5. Lee A,
    6. Rodríguez-González J,
    7. Li N,
    8. Macklin JJ,
    9. Phillips JW,
    10. Mensh BD,
    11. Branson K,
    12. Hantman AW
    (2015) Cortex commands the performance of skilled movement. eLife 4:e10774. doi:10.7554/eLife.10774 pmid:26633811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Haidarliu S,
    2. Simony E,
    3. Golomb D,
    4. Ahissar E
    (2010) Muscle architecture in the mystacial pad of the rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 293:1192–1206. doi:10.1002/ar.21156 pmid:20583263
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Haidarliu, S.,
    2. Kleinfeld, D.,
    3. Deschênes, M., and
    4. Ahissar, E
    (2014) The musculature that drives active touch by vibrissae and nose in mice. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 298:1347–1358. doi:10.1002/ar.23102 pmid:25408106
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Haiss F,
    2. Schwarz C
    (2005) Spatial segregation of different modes of movement control in the whisker representation of rat primary motor cortex. J Neurosci 25:1579–1587. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3760-04.2005 pmid:15703412
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Hall RD,
    2. Lindholm EP
    (1974) Organization of motor and somatosensory neocortex in the albino rat. Brain Res 66:23–38. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(74)90076-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  74. ↵
    1. Hanks TD,
    2. Kopec CD,
    3. Brunton BW,
    4. Duan CA,
    5. Erlich JC,
    6. Brody CD
    (2015) Distinct relationships of parietal and prefrontal cortices to evidence accumulation. Nature 520:220–223. doi:10.1038/nature14066 pmid:25600270
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Harris JA,
    2. Hirokawa KE,
    3. Sorensen SA,
    4. Gu H,
    5. Mills M,
    6. Ng LL,
    7. Bohn P,
    8. Mortrud M,
    9. Ouellette B,
    10. Kidney J,
    11. Smith KA,
    12. Dang C,
    13. Sunkin S,
    14. Bernard A,
    15. Oh SW,
    16. Madisen L,
    17. Zeng H
    (2014) Anatomical characterization of cre driver mice for neural circuit mapping and manipulation. Front Neural Circuits 8:76. doi:10.3389/fncir.2014.00076 pmid:25071457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Harris KD,
    2. Shepherd GM
    (2015) The neocortical circuit: themes and variations. Nat Neurosci 18:170–181. doi:10.1038/nn.3917 pmid:25622573
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Harrison TC,
    2. Ayling OG,
    3. Murphy TH
    (2012) Distinct cortical circuit mechanisms for complex forelimb movement and motor map topography. Neuron 74:397–409. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.028 pmid:22542191
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. ↵
    1. Hasson U,
    2. Yang E,
    3. Vallines I,
    4. Heeger DJ,
    5. Rubin N
    (2008) A hierarchy of temporal receptive windows in human cortex. J Neurosci 28:2539–2550. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5487-07.2008 pmid:18322098
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Hatsopoulos NG,
    2. Suminski AJ
    (2011) Sensing with the motor cortex. Neuron 72:477–487. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.020 pmid:22078507
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Hattox AM,
    2. Priest CA,
    3. Keller A
    (2002) Functional circuitry involved in the regulation of whisker movements. J Comp Neurol 442:266–276. doi:10.1002/cne.10089 pmid:11774341
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Heidenreich M,
    2. Zhang F
    (2016) Applications of CRISPR-cas systems in neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 17:36–44. doi:10.1038/nrn.2015.2 pmid:26656253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Heldt SA,
    2. Ressler KJ
    (2009) The use of lentiviral vectors and Cre/loxP to investigate the function of genes in complex behaviors. Front Mol Neurosci 2:22. doi:10.3389/neuro.02.022.2009 pmid:20011219
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Hemelt ME,
    2. Keller A
    (2007) Superior sensation: superior colliculus participation in rat vibrissa system. BMC Neurosci 8:12. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-8-12 pmid:17266753
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Hemelt ME,
    2. Keller A
    (2008) Superior colliculus control of vibrissa movements. J Neurophysiol 100: 1245–1254. doi:10.1152/jn.90478.2008 pmid:18562549
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Herfst LJ,
    2. Brecht M
    (2008) Whisker movements evoked by stimulation of single motor neurons in the facial nucleus of the rat. J Neurophysiol 99:2821–2832. doi:10.1152/jn.01014.2007 pmid:18353915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. ↵
    1. Hill DN,
    2. Curtis JC,
    3. Moore JD,
    4. Kleinfeld D
    (2011) Primary motor cortex reports efferent control of vibrissa motion on multiple timescales. Neuron 72:344–356. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.09.020 pmid:22017992
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. ↵
    1. Hira R,
    2. Ohkubo F,
    3. Tanaka YR,
    4. Masamizu Y,
    5. Augustine GJ,
    6. Kasai H,
    7. Matsuzaki M
    (2013) In vivo optogenetic tracing of functional corticocortical connections between motor forelimb areas. Front Neural Circuits 7:55. doi:10.3389/fncir.2013.00055 pmid:23554588
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. ↵
    1. Hira R,
    2. Terada S,
    3. Kondo M,
    4. Matsuzaki M
    (2015) Distinct functional modules for discrete and rhythmic forelimb movements in the mouse motor cortex. J Neurosci 35:13311–13322. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2731-15.2015 pmid:26424880
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  89. ↵
    1. Hooks BM,
    2. Lin JY,
    3. Guo C,
    4. Svoboda K
    (2015) Dual-channel circuit mapping reveals sensorimotor convergence in the primary motor cortex. J Neurosci 35:4418–4426. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3741-14.2015 pmid:25762684
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Hoover WB,
    2. Vertes RP
    (2007) Anatomical analysis of afferent projections to the medial prefrontal cortex in the rat. Brain Struct Funct 212:149–179. doi:10.1007/s00429-007-0150-4 pmid:17717690
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. ↵
    1. Huber D,
    2. Gutnisky DA,
    3. Peron S,
    4. O'Connor DH,
    5. Wiegert JS,
    6. Tian L,
    7. Oertner TG,
    8. Looger LL,
    9. Svoboda K
    (2012) Multiple dynamic representations in the motor cortex during sensorimotor learning. Nature 484:473–478. doi:10.1038/nature11039 pmid:22538608
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. ↵
    1. Hyland B
    (1998) Neural activity related to reaching and grasping in rostral and caudal regions of rat motor cortex. Behav Brain Res 94:255–269. doi:10.1016/S0166-4328(97)00157-5 pmid:9722277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. ↵
    1. Insanally, M.N.,
    2. Carcea, I.,
    3. Field, R.E.,
    4. Rodgers, C.C.,
    5. DePasquale, B.,
    6. Rajan, K.,
    7. DeWeese, M.R.,
    8. Albanna, B.F., and
    9. Froemke, R.C
    (2018) Nominally non-responsive frontal and sensory cortical cells encode task-relevant variables via ensemble consensus-building. bioRxiv Advance online publication. Retrieved on June 28, 2018. doi: 10.1101/347617.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  94. ↵
    1. Isomura Y,
    2. Harukuni R,
    3. Takekawa T,
    4. Aizawa H,
    5. Fukai T
    (2009) Microcircuitry coordination of cortical motor information in self-initiation of voluntary movements. Nat Neurosci 12:1586–1593. doi:10.1038/nn.2431 pmid:19898469
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. ↵
    1. Itokazu T,
    2. Hasegawa M,
    3. Kimura R,
    4. Osaki H,
    5. Albrecht UR,
    6. Sohya K,
    7. Chakrabarti S,
    8. Itoh H,
    9. Ito T,
    10. Sato TK,
    11. Sato TR
    (2018) streamlined sensory motor communication through cortical reciprocal connectivity in a visually guided eye movement task. Nat Commun 9:338. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02501-4 pmid:29362373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  96. ↵
    1. Jeong M,
    2. Kim Y,
    3. Kim J,
    4. Ferrante DD,
    5. Mitra PP,
    6. Osten P,
    7. Kim D
    (2016) Comparative three-dimensional connectome map of motor cortical projections in the mouse brain. Sci Rep 6:20072. doi:10.1038/srep20072 pmid:26830143
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  97. ↵
    1. Joiner WM,
    2. Cavanaugh J,
    3. Wurtz RH,
    4. Cumming BG
    (2017) Visual responses in FEF, unlike V1, primarily reflect when the visual context renders a receptive field salient. J Neurosci 37:9871–9879. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1446-17.2017 pmid:28912158
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  98. ↵
    1. Jun JJ,
    2. Steinmetz NA,
    3. Siegle JH,
    4. Denman DJ,
    5. Bauza M,
    6. Barbarits B,
    7. Lee AK,
    8. Anastassiou CA,
    9. Andrei A,
    10. Aydın Ç,
    11. Aydın Ç,
    12. Barbic M,
    13. Blanche TJ,
    14. Bonin V,
    15. Couto J,
    16. Dutta B,
    17. Gratiy SL,
    18. Gutnisky DA,
    19. Häusser M,
    20. Karsh B, et al
    . (2017) Fully integrated silicon probes for high-density recording of neural activity. Nature 551:232–236. doi:10.1038/nature24636 pmid:29120427
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  99. ↵
    1. Kawai R,
    2. Markman T,
    3. Poddar R,
    4. Ko R,
    5. Fantana AL,
    6. Dhawale AK,
    7. Kampff AR,
    8. Ölveczky BP
    (2015) Motor cortex is required for learning but not for executing a motor skill. Neuron 86: 800–812. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.03.024 pmid:25892304
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. ↵
    1. Kiehn O
    (2006) Locomotor circuits in the mammalian spinal cord. Annu Rev Neurosci 29:279–306. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112910 pmid:16776587
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  101. ↵
    1. Kilner JM,
    2. Lemon RN
    (2013) What we know currently about mirror neurons. Curr Biol 23:R1057–R1062. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.051 pmid:24309286
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  102. ↵
    1. Kim CK,
    2. Adhikari A,
    3. Deisseroth K
    (2017) Integration of optogenetics with complementary methodologies in systems neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:222–235. doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.15 pmid:28303019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  103. ↵
    1. Kim S,
    2. Lee D
    (2011) Prefrontal cortex and impulsive decision making. Biol Psychiatry 69:1140–1146. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.005 pmid:20728878
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. ↵
    1. Kimura R,
    2. Saiki A,
    3. Fujiwara-Tsukamoto Y,
    4. Sakai Y,
    5. Isomura Y
    (2017) Large-scale analysis reveals populational contributions of cortical spike rate and synchrony to behavioural functions. J Physiol 595:385–413. doi:10.1113/JP272794 pmid:27488936
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  105. ↵
    1. Kinnischtzke AK,
    2. Simons DJ,
    3. Fanselow EE
    (2014) Motor cortex broadly engages excitatory and inhibitory neurons in somatosensory barrel cortex. Cereb Cortex 24: 2237–2248. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht085 pmid:23547136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  106. ↵
    1. Kinnischtzke AK,
    2. Fanselow EE,
    3. Simons DJ
    (2016) Target-specific M1 inputs to infragranular S1 pyramidal neurons. J Neurophysiol 116:1261–1274. doi:10.1152/jn.01032.2015 pmid:27334960
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. ↵
    1. Klein BG,
    2. Rhoades RW
    (1985) Representation of whisker follicle intrinsic musculature in the facial motor nucleus of the rat. J Comp Neurol 232:55–69. doi:10.1002/cne.902320106 pmid:3973083
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  108. ↵
    1. Kleinfeld D,
    2. Sachdev RN,
    3. Merchant LM,
    4. Jarvis MR,
    5. Ebner FF
    (2002) Adaptive filtering of vibrissa input in motor cortex of rat. Neuron 34:1021–1034. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00732-8 pmid:12086648
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  109. ↵
    1. Knight TA,
    2. Fuchs AF
    (2007) Contribution of the frontal eye field to gaze shifts in the head-unrestrained monkey: effects of microstimulation. J Neurophysiol 97:618–634. doi:10.1152/jn.00256.2006 pmid:17065243
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. ↵
    1. Knudsen EI
    (2007) Fundamental components of attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 30:57–78. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094256 pmid:17417935
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. ↵
    1. Komiyama T,
    2. Sato TR,
    3. O'Connor DH,
    4. Zhang YX,
    5. Huber D,
    6. Hooks BM,
    7. Gabitto M,
    8. Svoboda K
    (2010) Learning-related fine-scale specificity imaged in motor cortex circuits of behaving mice. Nature 464:1182–1186. doi:10.1038/nature08897 pmid:20376005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  112. ↵
    1. Kopec CD,
    2. Erlich JC,
    3. Brunton BW,
    4. Deisseroth K,
    5. Brody CD
    (2015) Cortical and subcortical contributions to short-term memory for orienting movements. Neuron 88:367–377. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.033 pmid:26439529
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. ↵
    1. Krakauer JW,
    2. Ghazanfar AA,
    3. Gomez-Marin A,
    4. MacIver MA,
    5. Poeppel D
    (2017) Neuroscience needs behavior: correcting a reductionist bias. Neuron 93:480–490. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.041 pmid:28182904
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  114. ↵
    1. Kraskov A,
    2. Philipp R,
    3. Waldert S,
    4. Vigneswaran G,
    5. Quallo MM,
    6. Lemon RN
    (2014) Corticospinal mirror neurons. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369:20130174. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0174 pmid:24778371
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  115. ↵
    1. Laubach M,
    2. Caetano MS,
    3. Narayanan NS
    (2015) Mistakes were made: neural mechanisms for the adaptive control of action initiation by the medial prefrontal cortex. J Physiol Paris 109:104–117. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2014.12.001 pmid:25636373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  116. ↵
    1. Laubach M,
    2. Wessberg J,
    3. Nicolelis MA
    (2000) Cortical ensemble activity increasingly predicts behaviour outcomes during learning of a motor task. Nature 405:567–571. doi:10.1038/35014604 pmid:10850715
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. ↵
    1. Lebedev MA,
    2. O'Doherty JE,
    3. Nicolelis MA
    (2008) Decoding of temporal intervals from cortical ensemble activity. J Neurophysiol 99:166–186. doi:10.1152/jn.00734.2007 pmid:18003881
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  118. ↵
    1. Lee S,
    2. Carvell GE,
    3. Simons DJ
    (2008) Motor modulation of afferent somatosensory circuits. Nat Neurosci 11:1430–1438. doi:10.1038/nn.2227 pmid:19011625
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  119. ↵
    1. Lein ES,
    2. Hawrylycz MJ,
    3. Ao N,
    4. Ayres M,
    5. Bensinger A,
    6. Bernard A,
    7. Boe AF,
    8. Boguski MS,
    9. Brockway KS,
    10. Byrnes EJ,
    11. Chen L,
    12. Chen L,
    13. Chen TM,
    14. Chin MC,
    15. Chong J,
    16. Crook BE,
    17. Czaplinska A,
    18. Dang CN,
    19. Datta S,
    20. Dee NR, et al
    . (2007) Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature 445:168–176. doi:10.1038/nature05453 pmid:17151600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  120. ↵
    1. Leinweber M,
    2. Ward DR,
    3. Sobczak JM,
    4. Attinger A,
    5. Keller GB
    (2017) A sensorimotor circuit in mouse cortex for visual flow predictions. Neuron 95:1420–1432.e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.08.036 pmid:28910624
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. ↵
    1. Lemon RN
    (2008) Descending pathways in motor control. Annu Rev Neurosci 31:195–218. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125547 pmid:18558853
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  122. ↵
    1. Leonard CM
    (1969) The prefrontal cortex of the rat: I. cortical projection of the mediodorsal nucleus: II. Efferent connections. Brain Res 12:321–343. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(69)90003-1 pmid:4184997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  123. ↵
    1. Leyton AS,
    2. Sherrington CS
    (1917) Observations on the excitable cortex of the chimpanzee, orang-utan, and gorilla. Q J Exp Physiol 11:135–222. doi:10.1113/expphysiol.1917.sp000240
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  124. ↵
    1. Machens CK,
    2. Romo R,
    3. Brody CD
    (2005) Flexible control of mutual inhibition: a neural model of two-interval discrimination. Science 307:1121–1124. doi:10.1126/science.1104171 pmid:15718474
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. ↵
    1. Makino H,
    2. Ren C,
    3. Liu H,
    4. Kim AN,
    5. Kondapaneni N,
    6. Liu X,
    7. Kuzum D,
    8. Komiyama T
    (2017) Transformation of cortex-wide emergent properties during motor learning. Neuron 94:880–890.e8. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.015 pmid:28521138
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  126. ↵
    1. Manita S,
    2. Suzuki T,
    3. Homma C,
    4. Matsumoto T,
    5. Odagawa M,
    6. Yamada K,
    7. Ota K,
    8. Matsubara C,
    9. Inutsuka A,
    10. Sato M,
    11. Ohkura M,
    12. Yamanaka A,
    13. Yanagawa Y,
    14. Nakai J,
    15. Hayashi Y,
    16. Larkum ME,
    17. Murayama M
    (2015) A top-down cortical circuit for accurate sensory perception. Neuron 86:1304–1316. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.05.006 pmid:26004915
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  127. ↵
    1. Mao T,
    2. Kusefoglu D,
    3. Hooks BM,
    4. Huber D,
    5. Petreanu L,
    6. Svoboda K
    (2011) Long-range neuronal circuits underlying the interaction between sensory and motor cortex. Neuron 72:111–123. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.07.029 pmid:21982373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  128. ↵
    1. Matyas F,
    2. Sreenivasan V,
    3. Marbach F,
    4. Wacongne C,
    5. Barsy B,
    6. Mateo C,
    7. Aronoff R,
    8. Petersen CC
    (2010) Motor control by sensory cortex. Science 330:1240–1243. doi:10.1126/science.1195797 pmid:21109671
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. ↵
    1. Merrikhi Y,
    2. Clark K,
    3. Albarran E,
    4. Parsa M,
    5. Zirnsak M,
    6. Moore T,
    7. Noudoost B
    (2017) Spatial working memory alters the efficacy of input to visual cortex. Nat Commun 8:15041. doi:10.1038/ncomms15041 pmid:28447609
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. ↵
    1. Miller EK
    (2000) The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nat Rev Neurosci 1:59–65. doi:10.1038/35036228 pmid:11252769
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  131. ↵
    1. Mimica B,
    2. Dunn BA,
    3. Tombaz T,
    4. Bojja VP,
    5. Whitlockn JR
    (2018) Efficient cortical coding of 3D posture in freely behaving rats. BioRxiv. Retrieved on April 25, 2018. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1101/307785.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. ↵
    1. Miri A,
    2. Warriner CL,
    3. Seely JS,
    4. Elsayed GF,
    5. Cunningham JP,
    6. Churchland MM,
    7. Jessell TM
    (2017) Behaviorally selective engagement of short-latency effector pathways by motor cortex. Neuron 95:683–696.e11. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.042 pmid:28735748
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. ↵
    1. Mita A,
    2. Mushiake H,
    3. Shima K,
    4. Matsuzaka Y,
    5. Tanji J
    (2009) Interval time coding by neurons in the presupplementary and supplementary motor areas. Nat Neurosci 12:502–507. doi:10.1038/nn.2272 pmid:19252498
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  134. ↵
    1. Miyashita E,
    2. Mori S
    (1995) The superior colliculus relays signals descending from the vibrissal motor cortex to the facial nerve nucleus in the rat. Neurosci Lett 195:69–71. doi:10.1016/0304-3940(95)11782-R pmid:7478258
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  135. ↵
    1. Moore JD,
    2. Deschênes M,
    3. Furuta T,
    4. Huber D,
    5. Smear MC,
    6. Demers M,
    7. Kleinfeld D
    (2013) Hierarchy of orofacial rhythms revealed through whisking and breathing. Nature 497:205–210. doi:10.1038/nature12076 pmid:23624373
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  136. ↵
    1. Moore T,
    2. Fallah M
    (2001) Control of eye movements and spatial attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:1273–1276. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.3.1273 pmid:11158629
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  137. ↵
    1. Moore T,
    2. Armstrong KM
    (2003) Selective gating of visual signals by microstimulation of frontal cortex. Nature 421:370–373. doi:10.1038/nature01341 pmid:12540901
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  138. ↵
    1. Morandell K,
    2. Huber D
    (2017) The role of forelimb motor cortex areas in goal directed action in mice. Sci Rep 7:15759. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15835-2 pmid:29150620
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. ↵
    1. Murakami M,
    2. Vicente MI,
    3. Costa GM,
    4. Mainen ZF
    (2014) Neural antecedents of self-initiated actions in secondary motor cortex. Nat Neurosci 17:1574–1582. doi:10.1038/nn.3826 pmid:25262496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  140. ↵
    1. Murakami M,
    2. Shteingart H,
    3. Loewenstein Y,
    4. Mainen ZF
    (2017) Distinct sources of deterministic and stochastic components of action timing decisions in rodent frontal cortex. Neuron 94:908–919.e7. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.040 pmid:28521140
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  141. ↵
    1. Murray JD,
    2. Bernacchia A,
    3. Freedman DJ,
    4. Romo R,
    5. Wallis JD,
    6. Cai X,
    7. Padoa-Schioppa C,
    8. Pasternak T,
    9. Seo H,
    10. Lee D,
    11. Wang XJ
    (2014) A hierarchy of intrinsic timescales across primate cortex. Nat Neurosci 17:1661–1663. doi:10.1038/nn.3862 pmid:25383900
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  142. ↵
    1. Nachev P,
    2. Kennard C,
    3. Husain M
    (2008) Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:856–869. doi:10.1038/nrn2478 pmid:18843271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  143. ↵
    1. Nashaat MA,
    2. Oraby H,
    3. Peña LB,
    4. Dominiak S,
    5. Larkum ME,
    6. Sachdev RN
    (2017) Pixying behavior: a versatile real-time and post hoc automated optical tracking method for freely moving and head fixed animals. eNeuro 4:ENEURO.0245–16.2017. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0245-16.2017 pmid:28275712
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  144. ↵
    1. Neafsey EJ,
    2. Sievert C
    (1982) A second forelimb motor area exists in rat frontal cortex. Brain Res 232:151–156. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(82)90617-5 pmid:7055691
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  145. ↵
    1. Neafsey EJ,
    2. Bold EL,
    3. Haas G,
    4. Hurley-Gius KM,
    5. Quirk G,
    6. Sievert CF,
    7. Terreberry RR
    (1986) The organization of the rat motor cortex: a microstimulation mapping study. Brain Res 396:77–96. doi:10.1016/0165-0173(86)90011-1 pmid:3708387
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. ↵
    1. Nelson A,
    2. Schneider DM,
    3. Takatoh J,
    4. Sakurai K,
    5. Wang F,
    6. Mooney R
    (2013) A circuit for motor cortical modulation of auditory cortical activity. J Neurosci 33:14342–14353. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2275-13.2013 pmid:24005287
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  147. ↵
    1. Nelson A,
    2. Mooney R
    (2016) The basal forebrain and motor cortex provide convergent yet distinct movement-related inputs to the auditory cortex. Neuron 90:635–648. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.03.031 pmid:27112494
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. ↵
    1. Noudoost B,
    2. Moore T
    (2011) Control of visual cortical signals by prefrontal dopamine. Nature 474:372–375. doi:10.1038/nature09995 pmid:21572439
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  149. ↵
    1. Ocaña FM,
    2. Suryanarayana SM,
    3. Saitoh K,
    4. Kardamakis AA,
    5. Capantini L,
    6. Robertson B,
    7. Grillner S
    (2015) The lamprey pallium provides a blueprint of the mammalian motor projections from cortex. Curr Biol 25:413–423. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.013 pmid:25619762
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  150. ↵
    1. O'Connor DH,
    2. Clack NG,
    3. Huber D,
    4. Komiyama T,
    5. Myers EW,
    6. Svoboda K
    (2010) Vibrissa-based object localization in head-fixed mice. J Neurosci 30:1947–1967. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3762-09.2010 pmid:20130203
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  151. ↵
    1. Ohno S,
    2. Kuramoto E,
    3. Furuta T,
    4. Hioki H,
    5. Tanaka YR,
    6. Fujiyama F,
    7. Sonomura T,
    8. Uemura M,
    9. Sugiyama K,
    10. Kaneko T
    (2012) A morphological analysis of thalamocortical axon fibers of rat posterior thalamic nuclei: a single neuron tracing study with viral vectors. Cereb Cortex 22:2840–2857. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr356 pmid:22190433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  152. ↵
    1. Ölveczky BP
    (2011) Motoring ahead with rodents. Curr Opin Neurobiol 21:571–578. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2011.05.002 pmid:21628098
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  153. ↵
    1. Omrani M,
    2. Kaufman MT,
    3. Hatsopoulos NG,
    4. Cheney PD
    (2017) Perspectives on classical controversies about the motor cortex. J Neurophysiol 118:1828–1848. doi:10.1152/jn.00795.2016 pmid:28615340
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  154. ↵
    1. Paxinos G,
    2. Watson C
    (1982) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates. Cambridge, MA: Academic.
  155. ↵
    1. Penfield W,
    2. Boldrey E
    (1937) Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain 60:389–443. doi:10.1093/brain/60.4.389
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  156. ↵
    1. Peters AJ,
    2. Chen SX,
    3. Komiyama T
    (2014) Emergence of reproducible spatiotemporal activity during motor learning. Nature 510:263–267. doi:10.1038/nature13235 pmid:24805237
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  157. ↵
    1. Peters AJ,
    2. Lee J,
    3. Hedrick NG,
    4. O'Neil K,
    5. Komiyama T
    (2017a) Reorganization of corticospinal output during motor learning. Nat Neurosci 20:1133–1141. doi:10.1038/nn.4596 pmid:28671694
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  158. ↵
    1. Peters AJ,
    2. Liu H,
    3. Komiyama T
    (2017b) Learning in the rodent motor cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci 40:77–97. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031407 pmid:28375768
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  159. ↵
    1. Petreanu L,
    2. Gutnisky DA,
    3. Huber D,
    4. Xu NL,
    5. O'Connor DH,
    6. Tian L,
    7. Looger L,
    8. Svoboda K
    (2012) Activity in motor-sensory projections reveals distributed coding in somatosensation. Nature 489:299–303. doi:10.1038/nature11321 pmid:22922646
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  160. ↵
    1. Piet AT,
    2. Erlich JC,
    3. Kopec CD,
    4. Brody CD
    (2017) Rat prefrontal cortex inactivations during decision making are explained by bistable attractor dynamics. Neural Comput 29:2861–2886. doi:10.1162/neco_a_01005 pmid:28777728
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  161. ↵
    1. Prescott TJ,
    2. Diamond ME,
    3. Wing AM
    (2011) Active touch sensing. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:2989–2995. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0167 pmid:21969680
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  162. ↵
    1. Ratcliff R
    (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol Rev 85:59–108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  163. ↵
    1. Reep RL,
    2. Corwin JV,
    3. Hashimoto A,
    4. Watson RT
    (1987) Efferent connections of the rostral portion of medial agranular cortex in rats. Brain Res Bull 19:203–221. doi:10.1016/0361-9230(87)90086-4 pmid:2822206
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  164. ↵
    1. Reep RL,
    2. Corwin JV,
    3. Cheatwood JL,
    4. Van Vleet TM,
    5. Heilman KM,
    6. Watson RT
    (2004) A rodent model for investigating the neurobiology of contralateral neglect. Cogn Behav Neurol 17:191–194. pmid:15622013
    OpenUrlPubMed
  165. ↵
    1. Remington ED,
    2. Narain D,
    3. Hosseini EA,
    4. Jazayeri M
    (2018) Flexible sensorimotor computations through rapid reconfiguration of cortical dynamics. Neuron 98:1005–1019.e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.020 pmid:29879384
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  166. ↵
    1. Rigosa J,
    2. Lucantonio A,
    3. Noselli G,
    4. Fassihi A,
    5. Zorzin E,
    6. Manzino F,
    7. Pulecchi F,
    8. Diamond ME
    (2017) Dye-enhanced visualization of rat whiskers for behavioral studies. eLife 6:e25290. doi:10.7554/eLife.25290 pmid:28613155
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  167. ↵
    1. Rouiller EM,
    2. Moret V,
    3. Liang F
    (1993) Comparison of the connectional properties of the two forelimb areas of the rat sensorimotor cortex: support for the presence of a premotor or supplementary motor cortical area. Somatosens Mot Res 10:269–289. doi:10.3109/08990229309028837 pmid:8237215
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  168. ↵
    1. Sachdev RN,
    2. Sato T,
    3. Ebner FF
    (2002) Divergent movement of adjacent whiskers. J Neurophysiol 87:1440–1448. doi:10.1152/jn.00539.2001 pmid:11877518
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  169. ↵
    1. Saiki A,
    2. Kimura R,
    3. Samura T,
    4. Fujiwara-Tsukamoto Y,
    5. Sakai Y,
    6. Isomura Y
    (2014) Different modulation of common motor information in rat primary and secondary motor cortices. PLoS One 9:e98662. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098662 pmid:24893154
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  170. ↵
    1. Saiki A,
    2. Sakai Y,
    3. Fukabori R,
    4. Soma S,
    5. Yoshida J,
    6. Kawabata M,
    7. Yawo H,
    8. Kobayashi K,
    9. Kimura M,
    10. Isomura Y
    (2018) In vivo spiking dynamics of intra- and extratelencephalic projection neurons in rat motor cortex. Cereb Cortex 28:1024–1038. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhx012 pmid:28137723
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  171. ↵
    1. Schall JD,
    2. Stuphorn V,
    3. Brown JW
    (2002) Monitoring and control of action by the frontal lobes. Neuron 36:309–322. doi:10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00964-9 pmid:12383784
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  172. ↵
    1. Schiemann J,
    2. Puggioni P,
    3. Dacre J,
    4. Pelko M,
    5. Domanski A,
    6. van Rossum MC,
    7. Duguid I
    (2015) Cellular mechanisms underlying behavioral state-dependent bidirectional modulation of motor cortex output. Cell Rep 11:1319–1330. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.042 pmid:25981037
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  173. ↵
    1. Schneider DM,
    2. Mooney R
    (2015) Motor-related signals in the auditory system for listening and learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol 33:78–84. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2015.03.004 pmid:25827273
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  174. ↵
    1. Schneider DM,
    2. Nelson A,
    3. Mooney R
    (2014) A synaptic and circuit basis for corollary discharge in the auditory cortex. Nature 513:189–194. doi:10.1038/nature13724 pmid:25162524
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  175. ↵
    1. Scott BB,
    2. Constantinople CM,
    3. Akrami A,
    4. Hanks TD,
    5. Brody CD,
    6. Tank DW
    (2017) Fronto-parietal cortical circuits encode accumulated evidence with a diversity of timescales. Neuron 95:385–398.e5. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2017.06.013 pmid:28669543
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  176. ↵
    1. Seabrook TA,
    2. Burbridge TJ,
    3. Crair MC,
    4. Huberman AD
    (2017) Architecture, function, and assembly of the mouse visual system. Annu Rev Neurosci 40:499–538. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-033842 pmid:28772103
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  177. ↵
    1. Shadlen MN,
    2. Newsome WT
    (1996) Motion perception: seeing and deciding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93:628–633. doi:10.1073/pnas.93.2.628 pmid:8570606
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  178. ↵
    1. Shadmehr R
    (2017) Distinct neural circuits for control of movement vs. holding still. J Neurophysiol 117:1431–1460. doi:10.1152/jn.00840.2016 pmid:28053244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  179. ↵
    1. Shenoy KV,
    2. Sahani M,
    3. Churchland MM
    (2013) Cortical control of arm movements: a dynamical systems perspective. Annu Rev Neurosci 36:337–359. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150509 pmid:23725001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  180. ↵
    1. Siniscalchi MJ,
    2. Phoumthipphavong V,
    3. Ali F,
    4. Lozano M,
    5. Kwan AC
    (2016) Fast and slow transitions in frontal ensemble activity during flexible sensorimotor behavior. Nat Neurosci 19:1234–1242. doi:10.1038/nn.4342 pmid:27399844
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  181. ↵
    1. Sinnamon HM,
    2. Galer BS
    (1984) Head movements elicited by electrical stimulation of the anteromedial cortex of the rat. Physiol Behav 33:185–190. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(84)90098-2 pmid:6505061
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  182. ↵
    1. Smith JB,
    2. Alloway KD
    (2013) Rat whisker motor cortex is subdivided into sensory-input and motor-output areas. Front Neural Circuits 7:4. doi:10.3389/fncir.2013.00004 pmid:23372545
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  183. ↵
    1. Soma S,
    2. Saiki A,
    3. Yoshida J,
    4. Ríos A,
    5. Kawabata M,
    6. Sakai Y,
    7. Isomura Y
    (2017) Distinct laterality in forelimb-movement representations of rat primary and secondary motor cortical neurons with intratelencephalic and pyramidal tract projections. J Neurosci 37:10904–10916. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1188-17.2017 pmid:28972128
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  184. ↵
    1. Sommer MA,
    2. Tehovnik EJ
    (1997) Reversible inactivation of macaque frontal eye field. Exp Brain Res 116:229–249. doi:10.1007/PL00005752 pmid:9348123
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  185. ↵
    1. Squire RF,
    2. Noudoost B,
    3. Schafer RJ,
    4. Moore T
    (2013) Prefrontal contributions to visual selective attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 36:451–466. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150439 pmid:23841841
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  186. ↵
    1. Sreenivasan V,
    2. Karmakar K,
    3. Rijli FM,
    4. Petersen CC
    (2015) Parallel pathways from motor and somatosensory cortex for controlling whisker movements in mice. Eur J Neurosci 41:354–367. doi:10.1111/ejn.12800 pmid:25476605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  187. ↵
    1. Sreenivasan V,
    2. Esmaeili V,
    3. Kiritani T,
    4. Galan K,
    5. Crochet S,
    6. Petersen CCH
    (2016) Movement initiation signals in mouse whisker motor cortex. Neuron 92:1368–1382. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.001 pmid:28009277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  188. ↵
    1. Stuphorn V,
    2. Brown JW,
    3. Schall JD
    (2010) Role of supplementary eye field in saccade initiation: executive, not direct, control. J Neurophysiol 103:801–816. doi:10.1152/jn.00221.2009 pmid:19939963
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  189. ↵
    1. Svoboda K,
    2. Li N
    (2018) Neural mechanisms of movement planning: motor cortex and beyond. Curr Opin Neurobiol 49:33–41. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2017.10.023 pmid:29172091
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  190. ↵
    1. Tandon S,
    2. Kambi N,
    3. Jain N
    (2008) Overlapping representations of the neck and whiskers in the rat motor cortex revealed by mapping at different anaesthetic depths. Eur J Neurosci 27:228–237. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05997.x pmid:18093166
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  191. ↵
    1. Tanji J,
    2. Evarts EV
    (1976) Anticipatory activity of motor cortex neurons in relation to direction of an intended movement. J Neurophysiol 39:1062–1068. doi:10.1152/jn.1976.39.5.1062 pmid:824409
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  192. ↵
    1. Tark KJ,
    2. Curtis CE
    (2009) Persistent neural activity in the human frontal cortex when maintaining space that is off the map. Nat Neurosci 12:1463–1468. doi:10.1038/nn.2406 pmid:19801987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  193. ↵
    1. Teichert T,
    2. Yu D,
    3. Ferrera VP
    (2014) Performance monitoring in monkey frontal eye field. J Neurosci 34:1657–1671. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3694-13.2014 pmid:24478349
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  194. ↵
    1. Tennant KA,
    2. Adkins DL,
    3. Donlan NA,
    4. Asay AL,
    5. Thomas N,
    6. Kleim JA,
    7. Jones TA
    (2011) The organization of the forelimb representation of the C57BL/6 mouse motor cortex as defined by intracortical microstimulation and cytoarchitecture. Cereb Cortex 21:865–876. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq159 pmid:20739477
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  195. ↵
    1. Thura D,
    2. Cisek P
    (2014) Deliberation and commitment in the premotor and primary motor cortex during dynamic decision making. Neuron 81:1401–1416. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.01.031 pmid:24656257
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  196. ↵
    1. Tkach D,
    2. Reimer J,
    3. Hatsopoulos NG
    (2007) Congruent activity during action and action observation in motor cortex. J Neurosci 27:13241–13250. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2895-07.2007 pmid:18045918
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  197. ↵
    1. Towal RB,
    2. Hartmann MJ
    (2006) Right-left asymmetries in the whisking behavior of rats anticipate head movements. J Neurosci 26:8838–8846. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0581-06.2006 pmid:16928873
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  198. ↵
    1. Vigneswaran G,
    2. Philipp R,
    3. Lemon RN,
    4. Kraskov A
    (2013) M1 corticospinal mirror neurons and their role in movement suppression during action observation. Curr Biol 23:236–243. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.12.006 pmid:23290556
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  199. ↵
    1. Voigts J,
    2. Herman DH,
    3. Celikel T
    (2015) Tactile object localization by anticipatory whisker motion. J Neurophysiol 113:620–632. doi:10.1152/jn.00241.2014 pmid:25339711
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  200. ↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Li X,
    4. Zhang Z,
    5. Yang H,
    6. Zhang Y,
    7. Williams PR,
    8. Alwahab NSA,
    9. Kapur K,
    10. Yu B,
    11. Zhang Y,
    12. Chen M,
    13. Ding H,
    14. Gerfen CR,
    15. Wang KH,
    16. He Z
    (2017) Deconstruction of corticospinal circuits for goal-directed motor skills. Cell 171:440–455.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.08.014 pmid:28942925
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  201. ↵
    1. Wardak C
    (2011) The role of the supplementary motor area in inhibitory control in monkeys and humans. J Neurosci 31:5181–5183. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0006-11.2011
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  202. ↵
    1. Welker WI
    (1964) Analysis of sniffing of the albino rat. Behaviour 22:223–244. doi:10.1163/156853964X00030
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  203. ↵
    1. Whissell PD,
    2. Tohyama S,
    3. Martin LJ
    (2016) The use of DREADDs to deconstruct behavior. Front Genet 7:70. doi:10.3389/fgene.2016.00070 pmid:27242888
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  204. ↵
    1. Wimmer K,
    2. Nykamp DQ,
    3. Constantinidis C,
    4. Compte A
    (2014) Bump attractor dynamics in prefrontal cortex explains behavioral precision in spatial working memory. Nat Neurosci 17:431–439. doi:10.1038/nn.3645 pmid:24487232
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  205. ↵
    1. Winkowski DE,
    2. Knudsen EI
    (2006) Top-down gain control of the auditory space map by gaze control circuitry in the barn owl. Nature 439:336–339. doi:10.1038/nature04411 pmid:16421572
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  206. ↵
    1. Witten IB,
    2. Steinberg EE,
    3. Lee SY,
    4. Davidson TJ,
    5. Zalocusky KA,
    6. Brodsky M,
    7. Yizhar O,
    8. Cho SL,
    9. Gong S,
    10. Ramakrishnan C,
    11. Stuber GD,
    12. Tye KM,
    13. Janak PH,
    14. Deisseroth K
    (2011) Recombinase-driver rat lines: tools, techniques, and optogenetic application to dopamine-mediated reinforcement. Neuron 72:721–733. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.10.028 pmid:22153370
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  207. ↵
    1. Wolfe J,
    2. Mende C,
    3. Brecht M
    (2011) Social facial touch in rats. Behav Neurosci 125:900–910. doi:10.1037/a0026165 pmid:22122151
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  208. ↵
    1. Wolff SB,
    2. Ölveczky BP
    (2018) The promise and perils of causal circuit manipulations. Curr Opin Neurobiol 49:84–94. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2018.01.004 pmid:29414070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  209. ↵
    1. Wolpert DM,
    2. Landy MS
    (2012) Motor control is decision-making. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22:996–1003. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003 pmid:22647641
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  210. ↵
    1. Wong KF,
    2. Wang XJ
    (2006) A recurrent network mechanism of time integration in perceptual decisions. J Neurosci 26:1314–1328. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3733-05.2006 pmid:16436619
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  211. ↵
    1. Yang W,
    2. Yuste R
    (2017) In vivo imaging of neural activity. Nat Methods 14:349–359. doi:10.1038/nmeth.4230 pmid:28362436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  212. ↵
    1. Yartsev MM,
    2. Hanks TD,
    3. Yoon AM,
    4. Brody CD
    (2018) Causal contribution and dynamical encoding in the striatum during evidence accumulation. eLife 7:e34929. doi:10.7554/eLife.34929 pmid:30141773
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  213. ↵
    1. Yilmaz M,
    2. Meister M
    (2013) Rapid innate defensive responses of mice to looming visual stimuli. Curr Biol 23:2011–2015. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.015 pmid:24120636
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  214. ↵
    1. Zagha E,
    2. Casale AE,
    3. Sachdev RN,
    4. McGinley MJ,
    5. McCormick DA
    (2013) Motor cortex feedback influences sensory processing by modulating network state. Neuron 79:567–578. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.008 pmid:23850595
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  215. ↵
    1. Zagha E,
    2. Ge X,
    3. McCormick DA
    (2015) Competing neural ensembles in motor cortex gate goal-directed motor output. Neuron 88:565–577. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.044 pmid:26593093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  216. ↵
    1. Zhang S,
    2. Xu M,
    3. Kamigaki T,
    4. Hoang Do JP,
    5. Chang WC,
    6. Jenvay S,
    7. Miyamichi K,
    8. Luo L,
    9. Dan Y
    (2014) Long-range and local circuits for top-down modulation of visual cortex processing. Science 345:660–665. doi:10.1126/science.1254126 pmid:25104383
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  217. ↵
    1. Zilles, K., and
    2. Wree, A
    (1995) Cortex: areal and laminar structure. In: The rat nervous system (Paxinos G, ed.), pp 649–685. San Diego: Academic.
  218. ↵
    1. Zingg B,
    2. Hintiryan H,
    3. Gou L,
    4. Song MY,
    5. Bay M,
    6. Bienkowski MS,
    7. Foster NN,
    8. Yamashita S,
    9. Bowman I,
    10. Toga AW,
    11. Dong HW
    (2014) Neural networks of the mouse neocortex. Cell 156:1096–1111. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.02.023 pmid:24581503
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  219. ↵
    1. Zuo Y,
    2. Perkon I,
    3. Diamond ME
    (2011) Whisking and whisker kinematics during a texture classification task. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:3058–3069. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0161 pmid:21969687
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 38 (44)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 38, Issue 44
31 Oct 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
More than Just a “Motor”: Recent Surprises from the Frontal Cortex
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
More than Just a “Motor”: Recent Surprises from the Frontal Cortex
Christian L. Ebbesen, Michele N. Insanally, Charles D. Kopec, Masayoshi Murakami, Akiko Saiki, Jeffrey C. Erlich
Journal of Neuroscience 31 October 2018, 38 (44) 9402-9413; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1671-18.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
More than Just a “Motor”: Recent Surprises from the Frontal Cortex
Christian L. Ebbesen, Michele N. Insanally, Charles D. Kopec, Masayoshi Murakami, Akiko Saiki, Jeffrey C. Erlich
Journal of Neuroscience 31 October 2018, 38 (44) 9402-9413; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1671-18.2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • motor control
  • active sensing
  • action selection
  • action timing
  • decision-making
  • frontal cortex

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Making Sense of the Multiplicity and Dynamics of Navigational Codes in the Brain
  • Neural Mechanisms Mediating Sex Differences in Motivation for Reward: Cognitive Bias, Food, Gambling, and Drugs of Abuse
  • What Does the Frontopolar Cortex Contribute to Goal-Directed Cognition and Action?
Show more Symposium and Mini-Symposium
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2023 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.