Reviews and critical articles covering the entire field of normal anatomy (cytology, histology,cyto- and histochemistry, electron microscopy, macroscopy, experimental morphologyand embry ology and comparative anatomy) are published in Advances in Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology. Papers dealing with anthropology and clinical morphologythat aimto encourage co operation between anatomy and related disciplines will also be accepted. Papers are normally commissioned. Original papers andcommunicationsmaybesubmitted andwillbeconsidered for publication provided they meet the requirements of a review articleandthusfitintothescopeof"Advances". Englishlanguage is preferred, but in exceptional cases French orGerman papers will be accepted. Itisafundamental condition thatsubmitted manuscriptshavenot been and will not simultaneously be submitted or published elsewhere. With the acceptance ofa manuscriptfor publication, the publisher acquires full and exclusive copyright for all lan guages and countries. Twenty-five copies of each paper are supplied free ofcharge. Manuscripts shouldbeaddressed to Prof.Dr.F.BECK, Howard FloreyInstitute, University ofMelbourne, Parkville, 3000Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Prof.Dr.B.CHRIST, Anatomisches Institutder UniversltatFreiburg, Abteilung AnatomieII,Albertstr. 17,0-79104 Freiburg, Germany Prof.Dr.W.KRIZ,Anatomisches Institut derUnlversitatHeidelberg, 1mNeuenheimerFeld307,0-69120Heidelberg, Germany Prof.Dr.W.KUMMER, Institut fUrAnatomieundZellbiologie, UniversltatGieBen,Aulweg 123,0-35385GieBen,Germany Prof.Dr.E.MARANI,Leiden University, Department ofPhysiology, NeuroregulationGroup, P.O.Box9604,2300 RCLeiden,The Netherlands Prof.Dr.R.PUTZ,AnatomischeAnstaltder UnlversltatMunchen, Lehrstuhl Anatomie I,Pettenkoferstr.11,0-80336Munchen, Germany Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c. Y.SANO, DepartmentofAnatomy, Kyoto Prefectural University ofMedicine, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, 602Kyoto,Japan Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.T.H.SCHIEBLER,AnatomischesInstitut derUniversltat, KoellikerstraBe6, 0-97070Wurzburg,Germany Prof.Dr.K.ZILLES,UniversitatDusseldorf,Medizinische Einrichtungen, C.u.O.Vogt-Institut, Postfach 101007, 0-40001 Dusseldorf,Germany Advances in Anatomy Embryology and Cell Biology Vol. 174 Editors F. Beck, Melbourne B.Christ, Freiburg W. Kriz, Heidelberg E.Marani, Leiden W. Kummer, GieBen R. Putz, Miinchen Y. Sano, Kyoto T.H. Schiebler, Wiirzburg K.Zilles, Diisseldorf Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH S. Geyer The Microstructural Border Between the Motor and the Cognitive Domain in the Human Cerebral Cortex With 25Figures and 3Tables Springer Dr. Stefan Geyer C. & O. Vogt Brain Research Institute University of Diisseldorf Universitătsstr. 1 40225 Diisseldorf Germany e-mail: [email protected] ISSN 0301-5556 ISBN 978-3-540-40228-2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Geyer, Stefan, 1963- The microstructural border between the motor and the cognitive domain in the human cerebral cortex I Stefan Geyer. p. cm. - (Advances in anatomy, embryoloy, and cell biology; v. 174) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-540-40228-2 ISBN 978-3-642-18910-4 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-18910-4 1. Motor cortex-Cytology. 2. Cerebral cortex-Cytology. 3. Cytoarchitectonics. I. Tide. II. Series. This work is subject to copyright. Ali rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag. Violations are liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law. springeronline.com © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004 Originally published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York in 2004 The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Product liability: The publisher cannot guarantee the accuracy of any informa tion about dosage and application contained in this book. In every individual case the user must check such information by consulting the relevant literature. Typesetting: Stiirtz, Wiirzburg Printed on acid-free paper 27/3150/Ag - 5 4 3 2 1 O "Heureka!" Archimedes ofSyracuse (c. 285-212 Be) Contents 1 Prologue:Toward the Concept ofa Cortical ControlofVoluntaryMovements..... 1.1 Jackson and the ConceptofaMotor Cortex........ 1.2 ExperimentalConfirmation ofthe Motor Cortex in LaboratoryAnimals............................ 1 1.3 Maps ofthe Motor Cortex in Humans ............. 2 1.4 Differences in Function BetweenMotor and PremotorCortex ............................. 3 1.5 Cytoarchitectonic Analysis ofthe Motor and Premotor Cortex ............................. 4 1.6 Lashleyand Clark's Criticism ofCytoarchitectonic Maps ........................ 5 1.7 Observer-Independent Cytoarchitectonic Analysis and ProbabilisticMicrostructural- FunctionalCorrelation-Two Responses to Lashleyand Clark's Criticism................... 7 1.8 Goalofthis Study ................................ 8 2 Materialsand Methods ........................... 9 2.1 HistologicalProcessing ofPostmortem Brains ..... 10 2.2 Observer-Independent Cytoarchitectonic Analysis. 10 2.3 Three-Dimensional Reconstructionand Spatial Normalization ofthe HistologicalVolumes ........ 12 3 Results........................................... 15 3.1 CytoarchitectonicFeatures and Observer-IndependentAnalysis ofthe BorderBetweenArea6and the Prefrontal Cortex .,........................... 15 3.2 Cytoarchitectonic Features and Observer-Independent Analysisofthe Border BetweenArea6and the Primary Motor Cortex..................................... 23 3.3 Reconstruction ofthe Histological Volumes in 3-D,Spatial Normalization,and Generation ofthe Population Map ofArea6................... 24 VII 4 Discussion....................................... 27 4.1 Observer-Independent Delineation ofArea6 ...... 27 4.2 Spatial NormalizationofArea 6................... 29 4.3 The Isocortical MotorSystem in Macaques........ 30 4.3.1 The Structural Framework:Microanatomical Subdivisionofthe Agranular Frontal Isocortex .... 31 4.3.2 The Organizational Principle: Parieto-Frontal Circuits.......................................... 33 4.3.3 The Isocortical MotorSystem in Macaques........ 34 4.3.3.1 PrimaryMotorCortex (Area Fl).................. 34 4.3.3.2 SupplementaryMotor Areas"SMAProper" and "Pre-SMA" (Areas F3and F6)................. 40 4.3.3.3 Dorsolateral PremotorCortex (PMd;AreasF2and F7) .......................... 48 4.3.3.4 Ventrolateral Premotor Cortex (PMv;Areas F4and F5) .......................... 53 4.4 The IsocorticalMotorSystem in Humans ......... 61 4.4.1 StructuralOrganization .......................... 63 4.4.1.1 PrimaryMotorCortex............................ 63 4.4.1.2 SupplementaryMotor Areas "SMAProper" and "Pre-SMA"................................... 65 4.4.1.3 Dorsolateraland Ventrolateral PremotorCortex ... 66 4.4.2 FunctionalOrganization.......................... 67 4.4.2.1 PrimaryMotorCortex............................ 70 4.4.2.2 SupplementaryMotorAreas "SMAProper" and "Pre-SMA" ................................... 71 4.4.2.3 DorsolateralPremotorCortex..................... 73 4.4.2.4 Ventrolateral PremotorCortex.................... 74 5 Epilogue......................................... 75 References .............................................. 77 SubjectIndex ........................................... 91 VIII 1 Prologue: Toward the Concept of a Cortical Control of Voluntary Movements 1.1 Jacksonand the Concept of a MotorCortex In 1863John Hughlings Jackson wrote about unilateral epileptic seizures caused by syphilis: "In very many cases of epilepsy, and especially in syphilitic epilepsy, the convulsions are limited to one side of the body; and, as autopsies of patients who have died after syphilitic epilepsy appear to show,the cause is obvious organic dis ease on the side of the brain, opposite to the side of the body convulsed, frequently onthe surface ofthehemisphere" (cited from Finger 1994;Jackson 1863).Inthe mid dle of the nineteenth century the concept of a cortical control of voluntary move ments that is fullyaccepted today was hotly debated. It waswidelybelieved that the corpus striatumwasthe uppermost center ofmotorcontrol and the origin ofthe de scending motor tracts. Jackson, on the other hand, was intrigued by the spread of seizures over specific body parts, e.g., from the hand to the arm to the face on one side of the body or from the hip to the legto the foot and toes. Most frequently af fected were the muscles ofthe face,hand, and foot. Only in severe cases did the sei zure cross the midline and involve the entire body, usually followedby loss of con sciousness. In hemiplegic patients Jackson observed that unilateral seizures were most likelyto affectthose parts ofthe body that werealso most affected in hemiple gia. It appeared to him as if epilepsy were the "mobile counterpart of hemiplegia". Based on these observations, Jackson proposed a sector of the cerebral cortex with motor functions and topographically organized representations of muscles. In this motor cortex, those body parts most frequently affected by epileptic seizures (i.e., face,hand, and foot) were assumed to have larger spatial representations than body parts lessfrequently affected. 1.2 Experimental Confirmation of the MotorCortex in LaboratoryAnimals Jackson's concept wasbased on clinical observations and brilliant conclusions.How ever,he could not confirm experimentally the existence ofsuch a motor cortex, nor could hedefine itsprecise topography.This succeeded afewyears later.Severaltimes during the nineteenth century, scientists had attempted to induce body movements byelectrically stimulating the cortex oflaboratoryanimals. Theexperiments,howev- er, were not successful or provided conflicting results. In 1870,Gustav Fritsch and Eduard Hitzig stimulated the cortex ofdogs-not in a laboratory, but on a dressing table in a bedroom of Hitzig's house in Berlin. They found discrete regions of the cortex that gavemuscular responses in the forepaw,hindpaw, face, and neck on the opposite side. A unilateral lesion of the forepaw area with a scalpel handle signifi cantly impaired motor performance but did not cause sensory deficits (Fritsch and Hitzig 1870).Fritsch and Hitzig interpreted these findings as evidence for a discrete motor cortex with a somatotopic (i.e.,topographicallycorrect) representation ofthe body. Several years later David Ferrier replicated the findings of Fritsch and Hitzig in primates. Bystimulating the cortex rostral to the central sulcus with faradic current he obtained a broad spectrum of movements. Amonkey with a small motor cortex lesion developed paralysis restricted to the opposite hand and forearm but no defi cits intouch and pain sensation.Another with alesion that encompassed large parts ofthe leftfrontal,parietal,and temporallobe displayed aright hemiplegia. When the brain was examined histologically, Ferrier found a degeneration of the pyramidal tract extending as far as the lumbar spinal cord (Ferrier 1876,1886;Ferrier and Yeo 1885).In 1881,he eventook a monkey with aunilaterallesion ofthe left motor cor tex to the Seventh International MedicalCongress in London. When the hemiplegic animal, operated upon seven months earlier, limped into the demonstration room, Jean-Martin Charcot remarked:"It is a patient!" (cited from Finger 1994). Basedon the observation that patients with cortical lesions showed deficits predominantly in voluntary movements whereas involuntary and "automatic" movements wereless af fected,Jackson had already hypothesized that the cerebral cortex wasresponsible for voluntary actions whereas subcortical centers played a role in more "automatic" ac tivities. Ferrier confirmedthese conclusionswith observationsinlaboratoryanimals. Primateswith amore elaborate cortex rely,when interactingwith their environment, more onvoluntary movements than do animals loweron the phylogenetic scale,e.g., reptiles or amphibians. In other words, the higher an animal's levelon the phyloge netic scale, the more its voluntary movements are affected by damage to the motor cortex. The findings further supported the conceptthat voluntary movements, being phylogenetically more "modern:' are represented mainlyon acortical level. Around the turn of the twentieth century, Sidney Griinbaum and Charles Sher rington supplemented Ferrier's studies with stimulation and lesion experiments in apes. In accordance with Ferrier's findings, they reported that stimuli that evoked motor responsesfrom the precentralgyrus wereineffectivewhen applied inthe post central gyrus. Likewise,ablationsofthe precentralgyrus resulted in paralysis,where as lesions in the postcentral gyrus did not (Grimbaum and Sherrington 1902,1903). Grunbaum and Sherrington's carefully conducted experiments and meticulously published data remainedseminal throughoutthe twentieth century. 1.3 Maps of the MotorCortex in Humans The first comprehensive map ofthe human motor cortex is usually attributed to the Canadian neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield.The sketch ofits somatotopic organization (Penfield and Rasmussen 1952)-betterknown as the "motor homunculus"-can be 2