This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The basal ganglia are a complex subcortical structure that is principally involved in the selection and implementation of purposeful actions in response to external and internal cues. The basal ganglia set the pattern for facilitation of voluntary movements and simultaneous inhibition of competing or interfering movements. In addition, the basal ganglia are involved in the control of a wide variety of non-motor behaviors, spanning emotions, language, decision making, procedural learning, and working memory. This review presents a comparative overview of classic and contemporary models of basal ganglia organization and functional importance, including their increased integration with cortical and cerebellar structures.
Keywords: basal ganglia, somatotopy, extrinsic network, intrinsic networkThe basal ganglia are a group of interconnected subcortical nuclei that include the putamen and caudate nucleus (collectively, the striatum), globus pallidus (its internal GPi and external GPe segments), substantia nigra (its pars compacta SNc and pars reticulata SNr), and the subthalamic nucleus (STN). The limbic portion of the basal ganglia is composed of the nucleus accumbens, ventral pallidum, and ventral tegmental area. The basal ganglia are principally involved in the selection and implementation of purposeful actions in response to external and internal cues. Most prominently, the basal ganglia set the pattern for facilitation of voluntary movements and simultaneous inhibition of competing or interfering movements 1, 2 . Their contribution is also linked to the control of a wide range of complex non-motor behaviors, including emotions, language, decision making, procedural learning, and working memory.
Contemporary views about the expanded structural and functional organization of the basal ganglia are informed by several key discoveries that have been made in the past few years. These have important implications not only in regard to normal functioning of the basal ganglia and larger neural networks in general but also in terms of unraveling piece-by-piece yet-unknown mechanisms of various neurological and psychiatric disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, dystonia, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and Tourette syndrome, to name a few. This review presents a comparative overview of classic and contemporary models of basal ganglia organization, including their increased envelopment with cortical and cerebellar structures, and a discussion of the functional importance of basal ganglia and their significance in brain disorders.
There are several levels of complexity in the organization of basal ganglia. Since the late 1980s, the classic model of the basal ganglia in both humans and animals has been built on the presence of intrinsic direct and indirect pathways, both comprising a consecutive set of excitatory glutamatergic and inhibitory GABAergic projections. The intrinsic model 3 includes top-down cortical projections to the striatum, which further converge on GPi and SNr either directly or indirectly via GPe and STN ( Figure 1A ). The output from GPi and SNr is then directed to the thalamus, which further projects back to the cortex, forming a complete cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop. Both direct and indirect basal ganglia pathways are modulated by endogenous dopamine release from the SNc, which acts upon dopamine D 1-family receptors expressed on medium spiny neurons (MSNs) predominantly within the net excitatory direct pathway and D 2-family receptors expressed predominantly within the net inhibitory indirect pathway, thus balancing excitation and inhibition within the thalamo-cortical circuitry.
Schematic representation of basal ganglia intrinsic and extrinsic connectivity according to ( A) the classical model and ( B) the contemporary model. Modified and adapted with permission from Simonyan et al. 7 .
Building on the framework of this original model, recent studies discovered a much denser intrinsic basal ganglia connectivity ( Figure 1B ). One of the important updates to this model was the identification of bridging collaterals between the direct and indirect pathways, providing evidence for a cross-talk between these circuits, which were initially assumed to be largely segregated 4– 6 . The density of bridging collaterals was found to modulate the functional balance within the basal ganglia such that an increase in bridging collaterals led to enhanced pallidal inhibition 6 . In line with these findings, a recent positron emission tomography (PET) study in human subjects demonstrated a great degree of overlap between the direct and indirect basal ganglia pathways 7 .
Another revision to the classical model of basal ganglia involved the expansion of STN’s responsibility within its network. The STN is now considered a major input relay station receiving direct projections from various cortical and subcortical regions, including the recently identified hyperdirect cortico-subthalamo-pallidal pathway 8– 10 . The paramount significance of this finding is in its clinical relevance to the treatment of brain disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, where STN is a target for deep brain stimulation (DBS). Thus, detailed knowledge of its involvement in extrinsic cortical (hyperdirect pathway) and intrinsic basal ganglia (direct and indirect pathways) networks provides advanced knowledge, allowing fine-tuning of the DBS procedure and programming.
The reciprocity between basal ganglia structures is further established by expanded circuitry of GPe, which not only projects downstream to STN but also sends direct collaterals to GPi and SNr as well as feedback projections to the striatum 11, 12 . GPe has been found to contain heterogeneous populations of neurons, including Arky-GPe neurons targeting striatal GABAergic interneurons 13 , Lhx6-GPe neurons strongly projecting to the SNc and STN, and PV-GPe neurons predominantly projecting to the STN and parafascicular thalamic nucleus 14 , which collectively contribute to distinct motor and non-motor behaviors via different pallidal circuits 15– 17 . Overall, this higher level of integrity and interactions between basal ganglia structures allows their enhanced functional importance in contributing to and controlling an array of human and animal behaviors.
Although the SNc is known as the main structure harboring dopaminergic neurons that project to different basal ganglia and cortical divisions, dopaminergic neurons were also found to be scattered throughout the primate striatum and abounded in its ventral portion 18– 20 . An increase in the number of striatal dopaminergic neurons has been observed as a potentially compensatory response to the loss of nigrostriatal dopaminergic innervation, with the significance of implications for neurological disorders involving the basal ganglia and abnormal dopaminergic function, such as in Parkinson’s disease and dystonia. However, a recent study has challenged these assumptions by defining the vast majority of striatal tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) interneurons in transgenic enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP)-TH mice as medium-sized, aspiny, or very sparsely spiny interneurons expressing low levels of TH and making GABAergic synapses onto spiny projection neurons 21 .
In addition to these discoveries of cellular composition of the basal ganglia, an important feature of intrinsic organization is that their input is arranged in a highly topographic manner ( Figure 2 ). Similar to the distribution of body regions within the sensorimotor cortex, the basal ganglia nuclei are too somatotopically organized, harboring leg-hand/arm-face-larynx representations 22– 28 . These areas receive projections from corresponding motocortical regions, with the somatotopy preserved at the entire rostro-caudal extent and in their output to the thalamus, which loops back to the corresponding cortical representations. In the striatum, pallidum, and thalamus, the distribution of body regions is along the dorsal–ventral axis, with primary motor and premotor cortical projections forming parallel homunculi. The STN, on the other hand, forms a mirror set of homunculi, with the primary motor cortex predominantly projecting to its lateral part and the premotor cortex predominantly projecting to the medial part, although some areas receive a convergent input from both motocortical regions. Finally, SNr and SNc projections with the striatum have an inversed dorsoventral topography, such as the dorsal parts of the striatum project to the ventral SN regions, while the ventral striatal regions project dorsally. The dorsal one-third of SN carries the orofacial representation as a continuation of the same regions of the GPi, and the more ventral region receives an input from the premotor territories of the putamen 29, 30 . The rostromedial two-thirds contain projections from prefrontal striatal areas 31 , and the most medial part receives limbic striatal input 32 . The SNc dopaminergic neurons give rise to topographically organized striatal projections 33– 36 . Specifically, the dorsal tier and the most medial part of the ventral tier of the SNc project to the ventromedial striatum; the remaining ventral tier projections are directed to the associative striatum, and the ventrally extending cell columns of the ventral tier are connected to the sensorimotor striatum 37, 38 . The nigrostriatal connections, at least those of the striatal matrix, are reciprocal, and dopaminergic neurons synapse on MSNs, which in turn reach back to the somata and dendrites of SNc neurons 39, 40 . However, reciprocal nigrostriatal connections do not form a closed loop; instead, the ventral tier of SNc that receives input from the ventromedial striatum projects to the more dorsolateral striatum 41, 42 . In addition, while the nigral projections are topographically organized and directed to a particular striatal region, the extending weaker fibers also reach all other striatal divisions 43 . Thus, such feedforward connections allow the interplay between different striatal divisions that are responsible for the control of different aspects of a behavior.
Somatotopical representations within the motor cortex, basal ganglia, and thalamus ( A) Lateral and medial view of the monkey brain showing the somatotopic representation of body regions. Light-gray shading indicates primary motor cortex, and dark-gray shading indicates premotor cortex. Adapted with permission from Fadiga et al. 49 . ( B, C) Dorsoventral views of the basal ganglia subdivisions ( B) (putamen, external segment of the globus pallidus [GPe], internal segment of the globus pallidus [GPi], substantia nigra pars reticulata [SNr], and substantia nigra pars compacta [SNc]) and thalamus ( C) depicting somatotopic body representations. Adapted with permission from Nambu 28 .
Originally, there were two different proposals of how information may flow within the extrinsic cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical pathways. The prevailing view included the formation of parallel-projecting loops 8 , whereas the alternative view pertained to information convergence across the loops 9 ( Figure 3 ). The three principal functional loops are the motor loop, which projects via motor and premotor cortices; the associative loop, which involves dorsolateral prefrontal and parietal cortices; and the limbic loop, which converges on orbital and medial prefrontal cortex. However, these functional loops are found to be only partially segregated while establishing the anatomical links at different cortical, striatal, pallidal, and subthalamic levels 44 . In addition, selection and processing of a complex goal-directed behavior require an integration across different loops that carry information about motor, cognitive, and limbic components. As such, both parallel processing and information convergence are present within the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical pathways.
The representation is organized according to ( A) the parallel-projecting hypothesis 55– 58 and ( B) information convergence across the loops. Adapted from Percheron and Filion 59 .
In regard to extrinsic basal ganglia neuromodulatory projections, it has recently been demonstrated that, in addition to the major excitatory (glutamatergic) cortico-basal ganglia input 45 , the striatum receives direct GABAergic projections from motor and auditory cortices 46 . Primary and secondary motor cortex-striatal long-range projections in mice are supported by different molecular subtypes of GABAergic neurons, which express either somatostatin (SOM + ) or parvalbumin (PV + ) and differ in their target cell preference and the modulatory effects of a motor behavior 47 . On the other hand, while it is established that the basal ganglia modulate the cortex indirectly via the inhibitory (GABAergic) output to thalamus, a direct GABAergic/cholinergic projection between the GPe and frontal cortex does also exist 48 . Again, two cell types comprise this connectivity and differ in their electrophysiological properties, cortical target projections, and expression of choline acetyltransferase (ChAT).
Another drastic revision to the organization of extrinsic basal ganglia connectivity is the addition of the cerebellum to this circuitry. The original view of the cerebellum and basal ganglia was that of a “funneling” system, where both structures receive and process information from prefrontal, parietal, and temporal areas with a subsequently integrated output to the primary motor cortex for execution of a motor command 50– 54 . However, the development of a retrograde transneuronal tracer, herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV1), allowed the important discovery that different subdivisions of the basal ganglia (that is, GPi and SNr) and cerebellum (that is, dentate nucleus) have, in fact, a widespread output via distinct target thalamic nuclei to other cortical regions, such as subdivisions of premotor, oculomotor, prefrontal, and inferotemporal areas. Based on a revision of anatomical connectivity, it was proposed that the basal ganglia and cerebellum influence not only the motor behaviors but also various cognitive and limbic functions 60– 67 . However, it was still believed that the basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical and cerebello-thalamo-cortical pathways form anatomically independent loops that converge and communicate mainly at the level of target cortical regions 68, 69 .
Further modifications to this view came with the development and use of another retrograde transneuronal tracer, the rabies virus, which led to the discovery of basal ganglia and cerebellar connectivity at the subcortical level 70– 75 . Specifically, the STN was identified as an output region of dense disynaptic projections via the pontine nuclei to the cerebellar cortex. On the other hand, the dentate nucleus was found to be the main output structure, primarily via intralaminar thalamic nuclei, of dense disynaptic projections to the striatum and trisynaptic projections to the GPe but not the GPi. In addition, other deep cerebellar nuclei (that is, fastigial and interpositus nuclei) were demonstrated to be sources of striatal disynaptic projections, albeit to a lesser extent than the dentate nucleus. Given the participation of the GPi and GPe in the intrinsic direct and indirect basal ganglia pathways, respectively, it was suggested that the cerebellar output may preferentially influence the indirect basal ganglia pathway 71, 76 . Similar to the basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical output, the basal ganglia-cerebellar anatomical network is topographically organized in such a manner that the motor, associative, and limbic regions are interconnected between the two structures. This bidirectional communication between the basal ganglia and cerebellum at both subcortical and cortical levels is assumed to provide a backbone of the integrated functional network where motor and non-motor information is processed at multiple stages before its final cortical output.
In conclusion, the development of new methodologies and the conduct of parallel research in animal models and human subjects paved the way for a more complex view of basal ganglia structural organization. These advances have enhanced our understanding of the functional importance of this structure within the large-scale brain network, expanding their role in both motor and non-motor domains. Importantly, detailed knowledge of basal ganglia organization informed our views of their contribution to the pathophysiology of a range of neurological and psychiatric disorders and played a critical role in the development of novel therapeutic opportunities targeting specific anatomical or functional links (or both) of basal ganglia connectivity. Continued progress in the field of basal ganglia research will further refine and characterize the multi-layer organization of this structure, including both intrinsic and extrinsic connectivity.
[version 1; referees: 2 approved]
KS is supported by grants from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institutes of Health (R01DC011805, R01DC012545, and R01NS088160); the US Department of Defense (W911NF1810434); and Amazon Web Services.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
F1000 Faculty Reviews are commissioned from members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty and are edited as a service to readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, the referees provide input before publication and only the final, revised version is published. The referees who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations but without their reports on earlier versions (any comments will already have been addressed in the published version).
The referees who approved this article are:
Jeanette Hellgren Kotaleski, Department of Neuroscience, Nobel Institute for Neurophysiology, Stockholm, Sweden
No competing interests were disclosed. Mark Humphries, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK No competing interests were disclosed.1. Redgrave P, Prescott TJ, Gurney K: The basal ganglia: a vertebrate solution to the selection problem? Neuroscience. 1999; 89 ( 4 ):1009–23. 10.1016/S0306-4522(98)00319-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Mink JW: The basal ganglia: focused selection and inhibition of competing motor programs. Prog Neurobiol. 1996; 50 ( 4 ):381–425. 10.1016/S0301-0082(96)00042-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Albin RL, Young AB, Penney JB: The functional anatomy of basal ganglia disorders. Trends Neurosci. 1989; 12 ( 10 ):366–75. 10.1016/0166-2236(89)90074-X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Wu Y, Richard S, Parent A: The organization of the striatal output system: a single-cell juxtacellular labeling study in the rat. Neurosci Res. 2000; 38 ( 1 ):49–62. 10.1016/S0168-0102(00)00140-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Matamales M, Bertran-Gonzalez J, Salomon L, et al.: Striatal medium-sized spiny neurons: identification by nuclear staining and study of neuronal subpopulations in BAC transgenic mice. PLoS One. 2009; 4 ( 3 ):e4770. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004770 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Cazorla M, de Carvalho FD, Chohan MO, et al.: Dopamine D2 receptors regulate the anatomical and functional balance of basal ganglia circuitry. Neuron. 2014; 81 ( 1 ):153–64. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.041 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
7. Simonyan K, Cho H, Hamzehei Sichani A, et al.: The direct basal ganglia pathway is hyperfunctional in focal dystonia. Brain. 2017; 140 ( 12 ):3179–90. 10.1093/brain/awx263 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
8. Nambu A, Tokuno H, Takada M: Functional significance of the cortico-subthalamo-pallidal 'hyperdirect' pathway. Neurosci Res. 2002; 43 ( 2 ):111–7. 10.1016/S0168-0102(02)00027-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Coizet V, Graham JH, Moss J, et al.: Short-latency visual input to the subthalamic nucleus is provided by the midbrain superior colliculus. J Neurosci. 2009; 29 ( 17 ):5701–9. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0247-09.2009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Lanciego JL, Gonzalo N, Castle M, et al.: Thalamic innervation of striatal and subthalamic neurons projecting to the rat entopeduncular nucleus. Eur J Neurosci. 2004; 19 ( 5 ):1267–77. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03244.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Smith Y, Bevan MD, Shink E, et al.: Microcircuitry of the direct and indirect pathways of the basal ganglia. Neuroscience. 1998; 86 ( 2 ):353–87. 10.1016/S0306-4522(98)00004-9 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Kita H, Tokuno H, Nambu A: Monkey globus pallidus external segment neurons projecting to the neostriatum. Neuroreport. 1999; 10 ( 7 ):1467–72. 10.1097/00001756-199905140-00014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Mallet N, Micklem BR, Henny P, et al.: Dichotomous organization of the external globus pallidus. Neuron. 2012; 74 ( 6 ):1075–86. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.027 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
14. Mastro KJ, Bouchard RS, Holt HA, et al.: Transgenic mouse lines subdivide external segment of the globus pallidus (GPe) neurons and reveal distinct GPe output pathways. J Neurosci. 2014; 34 ( 6 ):2087–99. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4646-13.2014 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
15. Gittis AH, Berke JD, Bevan MD, et al.: New roles for the external globus pallidus in basal ganglia circuits and behavior. J Neurosci. 2014; 34 ( 46 ):15178–83. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3252-14.2014 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
16. Grabli D, McCairn K, Hirsch EC, et al.: Behavioural disorders induced by external globus pallidus dysfunction in primates: I. Behavioural study. Brain. 2004; 127 ( Pt 9 ):2039–54. 10.1093/brain/awh220 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. François C, Grabli D, McCairn K, et al.: Behavioural disorders induced by external globus pallidus dysfunction in primates II. Anatomical study. Brain. 2004; 127 ( Pt 9 ):2055–70. 10.1093/brain/awh239 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Betarbet R, Turner R, Chockkan V, et al.: Dopaminergic neurons intrinsic to the primate striatum. J Neurosci. 1997; 17 ( 17 ):6761–8. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-17-06761.1997 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Cossette M, Lecomte F, Parent A: Morphology and distribution of dopaminergic neurons intrinsic to the human striatum. J Chem Neuroanat. 2005; 29 ( 1 ):1–11. 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2004.08.007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Lévesque M, Bédard A, Cossette M, et al.: Novel aspects of the chemical anatomy of the striatum and its efferents projections. J Chem Neuroanat. 2003; 26 ( 4 ):271–81. 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2003.07.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Xenias HS, Ibáñez-Sandoval O, Koós T, et al.: Are striatal tyrosine hydroxylase interneurons dopaminergic? J Neurosci. 2015; 35 ( 16 ):6584–99. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0195-15.2015 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
22. Künzle H: Bilateral projections from precentral motor cortex to the putamen and other parts of the basal ganglia. An autoradiographic study in Macaca fascicularis. Brain Res. 1975; 88 ( 2 ):195–209. 10.1016/0006-8993(75)90384-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Simonyan K, Jürgens U: Efferent subcortical projections of the laryngeal motorcortex in the rhesus monkey. Brain Res. 2003; 974 ( 1–2 ):43–59. 10.1016/S0006-8993(03)02548-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Gerardin E, Lehéricy S, Pochon JB, et al.: Foot, hand, face and eye representation in the human striatum. Cereb Cortex. 2003; 13 ( 2 ):162–9. 10.1093/cercor/13.2.162 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Maillard L, Ishii K, Bushara K, et al.: Mapping the basal ganglia: fMRI evidence for somatotopic representation of face, hand, and foot. Neurology. 2000; 55 ( 3 ):377–83. 10.1212/WNL.55.3.377 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Romanelli P, Esposito V, Schaal DW, et al.: Somatotopy in the basal ganglia: experimental and clinical evidence for segregated sensorimotor channels. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2005; 48 ( 1 ):112–28. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2004.09.008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Nambu A, Kaneda K, Tokuno H, et al.: Organization of corticostriatal motor inputs in monkey putamen. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 88 ( 4 ):1830–42. 10.1152/jn.2002.88.4.1830 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Nambu A: Somatotopic organization of the primate Basal Ganglia. Front Neuroanat. 2011; 5 :26. 10.3389/fnana.2011.00026 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. DeLong MR, Crutcher MD, Georgopoulos AP: Relations between movement and single cell discharge in the substantia nigra of the behaving monkey. J Neurosci. 1983; 3 ( 8 ):1599–606. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.03-08-01599.1983 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Kitano H, Tanibuchi I, Jinnai K: The distribution of neurons in the substantia nigra pars reticulata with input from the motor, premotor and prefrontal areas of the cerebral cortex in monkeys. Brain Res. 1998; 784 ( 1–2 ):228–38. 10.1016/S0006-8993(97)01332-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Smith Y, Parent A: Differential connections of caudate nucleus and putamen in the squirrel monkey ( Saimiri sciureus). Neuroscience. 1986; 18 ( 2 ):347–71. 10.1016/0306-4522(86)90159-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Haber SN, Lynd E, Klein C, et al.: Topographic organization of the ventral striatal efferent projections in the rhesus monkey: an anterograde tracing study. J Comp Neurol. 1990; 293 ( 2 ):282–98. 10.1002/cne.902930210 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Carpenter MB, Peter P: Nigrostriatal and nigrothalamic fibers in the rhesus monkey. J Comp Neurol. 1972; 144 ( 1 ):93–115. 10.1002/cne.901440105 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Childs JA, Gale K: Neurochemical evidence for a nigrotegmental GAbAergic projection. Brain Res. 1983; 258 ( 1 ):109–14. 10.1016/0006-8993(83)91233-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Thörner G, Lange H, Hopf A: [Morphometrical-statistical structure analysis of human striatum, pallidus and subthalamic nucleus. II. Globus pallidus]. J Hirnforsch. 1975; 16 ( 5 ):401–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Ungerstedt U: Stereotaxic mapping of the monoamine pathways in the rat brain. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl. 1971; 367 :1–48. 10.1111/j.1365-201X.1971.tb10998.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Haber SN, Fudge JL, McFarland NR: Striatonigrostriatal pathways in primates form an ascending spiral from the shell to the dorsolateral striatum. J Neurosci. 2000; 20 ( 6 ):2369–82. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-06-02369.2000 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Lynd-Balta E, Haber SN: The organization of midbrain projections to the striatum in the primate: sensorimotor-related striatum versus ventral striatum. Neuroscience. 1994; 59 ( 3 ):625–40. 10.1016/0306-4522(94)90182-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Hedreen JC, Struble RG, Whitehouse PJ, et al.: Topography of the magnocellular basal forebrain system in human brain. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 1984; 43 ( 1 ):1–21. 10.1097/00005072-198401000-00001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Wassef M, Berod A, Sotelo C: Dopaminergic dendrites in the pars reticulata of the rat substantia nigra and their striatal input. Combined immunocytochemical localization of tyrosine hydroxylase and anterograde degeneration. Neuroscience. 1981; 6 ( 11 ):2125–39. 10.1016/0306-4522(81)90003-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Lynd-Balta E, Haber SN: Primate striatonigral projections: a comparison of the sensorimotor-related striatum and the ventral striatum. J Comp Neurol. 1994; 345 ( 4 ):562–78. 10.1002/cne.903450407 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Somogyi P, Bolam JP, Smith AD: Monosynaptic cortical input and local axon collaterals of identified striatonigral neurons. A light and electron microscopic study using the Golgi-peroxidase transport-degeneration procedure. J Comp Neurol. 1981; 195 ( 4 ):567–84. 10.1002/cne.901950403 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Franois C, Yelnik J, Tand D, et al.: Dopaminergic cell group A8 in the monkey: anatomical organization and projections to the striatum. J Comp Neurol. 1999; 414 ( 3 ):334–47. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19991122)414:33.0.CO;2-X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Joel D, Niv Y, Ruppin E: Actor-critic models of the basal ganglia: new anatomical and computational perspectives. Neural Netw. 2002; 15 ( 4–6 ):535–47. 10.1016/S0893-6080(02)00047-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. McGeorge AJ, Faull RL: The organization of the projection from the cerebral cortex to the striatum in the rat. Neuroscience. 1989; 29 ( 3 ):503–37. 10.1016/0306-4522(89)90128-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Rock C, Zurita H, Wilson C, et al.: An inhibitory corticostriatal pathway. eLife. 2016; 5 : pii: e15890. 10.7554/eLife.15890 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
47. Melzer S, Gil M, Koser DE, et al.: Distinct Corticostriatal GABAergic Neurons Modulate Striatal Output Neurons and Motor Activity. Cell Rep. 2017; 19 ( 5 ):1045–55. 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.04.024 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
48. Saunders A, Oldenburg IA, Berezovskii VK, et al.: A direct GABAergic output from the basal ganglia to frontal cortex. Nature. 2015; 521 ( 7550 ):85–9. 10.1038/nature14179 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
49. Fadiga L, Fogassi, L, Gallese, V, et al.: Visuomotor neurons: ambiguity of the discharge or 'motor' perception? Int J Psychophysiol. 2000; 35 ( 2–3 ):165–77. 10.1016/S0167-8760(99)00051-3 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Allen GI, Tsukahara N: Cerebrocerebellar communication systems. Physiol Rev. 1974; 54 ( 4 ):957–1006. 10.1152/physrev.1974.54.4.957 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Allen GI, Gilbert PF, Yin TC: Convergence of cerebral inputs onto dentate neurons in monkey. Exp Brain Res. 1978; 32 ( 2 ):151–70. 10.1007/BF00239724 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Asanuma C, Thach WT, Jones EG: Distribution of cerebellar terminations and their relation to other afferent terminations in the ventral lateral thalamic region of the monkey. Brain Res Rev. 1983; 286 ( 3 ):237–65. 10.1016/0165-0173(83)90015-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Evarts EV, Thach WT: Motor mechanisms of the CNS: cerebrocerebellar interrelations. Annu Rev Physiol. 1969; 31 :451–98. 10.1146/annurev.ph.31.030169.002315 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Kemp JM, Powell TP: The connexions of the striatum and globus pallidus: synthesis and speculation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1971; 262 ( 845 ):441–57. 10.1098/rstb.1971.0106 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Alexander GE, DeLong MR, Strick PL: Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1986; 9 :357–81. 10.1146/annurev.ne.09.030186.002041 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Wiesendanger E, Clarke S, Kraftsik R, et al.: Topography of cortico-striatal connections in man: anatomical evidence for parallel organization. Eur J Neurosci. 2004; 20 ( 7 ):1915–22. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03640.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. McHaffie JG, Stanford TR, Stein BE, et al.: Subcortical loops through the basal ganglia. Trends Neurosci. 2005; 28 ( 8 ):401–7. 10.1016/j.tins.2005.06.006 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. Draganski B, Kherif F, Klöppel S, et al.: Evidence for segregated and integrative connectivity patterns in the human Basal Ganglia. J. Neurosci. 2008; 28 ( 28 ):7143–52. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1486-08.2008 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
59. Percheron G, Filion M: Parallel processing in the basal ganglia: up to a point. Trends Neurosci. 1991; 14 ( 2 ):55–9. 10.1016/0166-2236(91)90020-U [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Lynch JC, Hoover JE, Strick PL: Input to the primate frontal eye field from the substantia nigra, superior colliculus, and dentate nucleus demonstrated by transneuronal transport. Exp Brain Res. 1994; 100 ( 1 ):181–6. 10.1007/BF00227293 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Middleton FA, Strick PL: The temporal lobe is a target of output from the basal ganglia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996; 93 ( 16 ):8683–7. 10.1073/pnas.93.16.8683 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Middleton FA, Strick PL: Dentate output channels: motor and cognitive components. Prog Brain Res. 1997; 114 :553–66. 10.1016/S0079-6123(08)63386-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Middleton FA, Strick PL: Cerebellar output: motor and cognitive channels. Trends Cogn Sci. 1998; 2 ( 9 ):348–54. 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01220-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Zemanick MC, Strick PL, Dix RD: Direction of transneuronal transport of herpes simplex virus 1 in the primate motor system is strain-dependent. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991; 88 ( 18 ):8048–51. 10.1073/pnas.88.18.8048 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Hoover JE, Strick PL: Multiple output channels in the basal ganglia. Science. 1993; 259 ( 5096 ):819–21. 10.1126/science.7679223 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Hoover JE, Strick PL: The organization of cerebellar and basal ganglia outputs to primary motor cortex as revealed by retrograde transneuronal transport of herpes simplex virus type 1. J Neurosci. 1999; 19 ( 4 ):1446–63. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-04-01446.1999 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Middleton FA, Strick PL: Anatomical evidence for cerebellar and basal ganglia involvement in higher cognitive function. Science. 1994; 266 ( 5184 ):458–61. 10.1126/science.7939688 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Middleton FA, Strick PL: Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops: motor and cognitive circuits. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2000; 31 ( 2–3 ):236–50. 10.1016/S0165-0173(99)00040-5 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Doya K: Complementary roles of basal ganglia and cerebellum in learning and motor control. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2000; 10 ( 6 ):732–9. 10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00153-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Bostan AC, Dum RP, Strick PL: Cerebellar networks with the cerebral cortex and basal ganglia. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013; 17 ( 5 ):241–54. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.003 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
71. Hoshi E, Tremblay L, Féger J, et al.: The cerebellum communicates with the basal ganglia. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8 ( 11 ):1491–3. 10.1038/nn1544 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
72. Bostan AC, Strick PL: The cerebellum and basal ganglia are interconnected. Neuropsychol Rev. 2010; 20 ( 3 ):261–70. 10.1007/s11065-010-9143-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Bostan AC, Dum RP, Strick PL: The basal ganglia communicate with the cerebellum. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010; 107 ( 18 ):8452–6. 10.1073/pnas.1000496107 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Ichinohe N, Mori F, Shoumura K: A di-synaptic projection from the lateral cerebellar nucleus to the laterodorsal part of the striatum via the central lateral nucleus of the thalamus in the rat. Brain Res. 2000; 880 ( 1–2 ):191–7. 10.1016/S0006-8993(00)02744-X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Jwair S, Coulon P, Ruigrok TJ: Disynaptic Subthalamic Input to the Posterior Cerebellum in Rat. Front Neuroanat. 2017; 11 :13. 10.3389/fnana.2017.00013 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Bostan AC, Strick PL: The basal ganglia and the cerebellum: nodes in an integrated network. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2018; 19 ( 6 ):338–50. 10.1038/s41583-018-0002-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] F1000 Recommendation
