Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of unit activity in hippocampal structures (the subiculum)

  • Published:
Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusions

  1. 1.

    Investigation of unit activity in the subiculum showed grouping of activity into bursts in 58% of its neurons. Analysis of these neurons revealed two fundamentally different groups: 13% give bursts with long interspike intervals and with a frequency of 4.5–6.0 Hz (“theta”), 45% give dense bursts with a frequency of 2.0–3.8 Hz (“delta”).

  2. 2.

    Of the total number of subicular cells that respond to sensory stimuli, half are multimodal. Tonic responses predominate (51%), phasic (30%) and specific (19%) responses are observed in a minority of cells. The responses are characterized by rapid extinction on repetition of the stimulus, usually with a short initial incremental phase.

  3. 3.

    Abolition of septal afferents leads to complete disappearance of the bursting theta activity, whereas the low-frequency rhythmic bursts are preserved. The number of neurons with tonic responses is reduced in this case and the habituation process is disturbed.

  4. 4.

    Comparative analysis revealed considerable similarity between hippocampal area CA1 and the subiculum with respect to most characteristics of responses of their neurons. This confirms the view that afferent connections from area CA1 make an important contribution to the work of the subiculum and that these structures exhibit morphological and functional unity within the system of the archicortex.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  1. V. S. Belokrinitskii, in: Problems in the Physiology of the Hypothalamus [in Russian], No. 7, Kiev (1973), p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. S. Brazhnik and O. S. Vinogradova, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,24, No. 6, 1280 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. S. Brazhnik and O. S. Vinogradova, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,25, No. 5, 1044 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. S. Brazhnik and O. S. Vinogradova, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,28., No. 2, 372 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  5. O. S. Vinogradova and K. I. Dudaeva, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,21, No. 3, 577 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. A. Kryuchkova, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,27, No. 2, 297 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. S. Sotnichenko, Zh. Évol. Biokhim. Fiziol.,6, No. 6, 571 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. S. Stafekhina and O. S. Vinogradova, in: The Limbic System of the Brain [in Russian], Pushchino-on-Oka (1973), p. 191.

  9. V. S. Stafekhina and O. S. Vinogradova, Zh. Vyssh. Nerv. Deyat.,26, No. 5, 1074 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  10. I. N. Filimonov, Comparative Anatomy of the Mammalian Cerebral Cortex. The Paleocortex, Archicortex, and Intermediate Cortex [in Russian], Moscow (1949).

  11. P. Andersen, B. H. Bland, and J. D. Dudar, Exp. Brain Res.,17, No. 2, 152 (1973).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. R. M. Beckstead, Anat. Rec.,187, No. 4, 534 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  13. T. W. J. Blackstad, J. Comp. Neurol.,105, No. 3, 417 (1956).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. S. Ramon-y-Cajal, Studies on the Cerebral Cortex (Limbic Structures), Lloyd-Luke, London (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. B. Chronister, S. F. Zornetzer, J. J. Bernstein, and L. E. White, Brain Res.,65, No. 1, 13 (1974).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. R. B. Chronister, R. W. Sikes, and L. E. White, in: The-Septal Nuclei, (J. F. de France, ed., Plenum Press, New York (1976), p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  17. V. B. Domesick, Brain Res.,12, No. 1, 296 (1969).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. S. E. Fox and J. B. Ranck, Exp. Neurol.,49, No. 2, 299 (1975).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. A. J. Hjorth-Simonsen, J. Comp. Neurol.,147, No. 1, 145 (1973).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. R. C. Meibach and A. Siegel, Brain Res.,88, No. 3, 508 (1975).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. R. C. Meibach and A. Siegel, Brain Res.,124, No. 2, 197 (1977).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. J. B. Ranck, in: The Hippocampus, (R. L. Isaacson and K. H. Pribram, eds.), Vol. 2, Plenum Press, New York (1975), p. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  23. D. N. Pandya, V. B. Domesick, G. W. von Hoesen, and M. M. Mesulam, Anat. Rec.,172, No. 2, 379a (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. L. Rosene, G. W. von Hoesen, and M. M. Mesulam, Anat. Rec.,184, No. 3, 517 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  25. L. W. Swanson and W. M. Cowan, J. Comp. Neurol.,172, No. 1, 49 (1977).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Memory Problems, Institute of Biological Physics, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Pushchino-on-Oka

    V. S. Stafekhina & O. S. Vinogradova

Authors
  1. V. S. Stafekhina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. S. Vinogradova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Translated from Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deyatel'nosti, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 1009–1017, September–October, 1979.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stafekhina, V.S., Vinogradova, O.S. Characteristics of unit activity in hippocampal structures (the subiculum). Neurosci Behav Physiol 11, 587–594 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186838

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186838

Keywords

Search

Navigation