Selective convergence and graded divergence of hippocampal and amygdala subregions using functional connectivity

Authors

Erigüc, D. Y., Marsiglia, M., John, A., Bayrak, S., Wan, B., Jakovcic, A., DeKraker, J., Royer, J., Bernhardt, B., Valk, S. L.

Abstract

The hippocampus and amygdala are neighboring medial temporal lobe structures linked to memory and affect, yet how their subregions are jointly embedded within distributed isocortical systems remains unclear. Using resting-state fMRI from 722 Human Connectome Project Young Adult participants, we mapped hippocampal and amygdalar subregions within a unified cortex-wide framework, quantifying subregion-to-cortex connectivity via Pearson correlation (broad co-fluctuation) and GLASSO partial correlation (relatively more direct functional association). We introduced two count-based metrics: dominance (relative hippocampal vs. amygdalar representation) and sharedness (balanced co-representation). Direct associations showed both structures sharing coupling with paralimbic areas and, more modestly, default mode regions, while broader co-fluctuations extended into somatomotor and paralimbic networks. Divergence patterns depended on the estimator: hippocampal subregions preferentially coupled with default-mode and visual networks under direct association, while amygdalar nuclei favored ventral attention and limbic networks; broader co-fluctuations additionally implicated somatomotor cortex for amygdala and visual cortex for hippocampus. These principles held at the subfield/nucleus level, varying along the hippocampal long axis and identifying the paralaminar nucleus as the most hippocampus-like amygdalar subregion. Data-driven connectivity gradients confirmed both systems' separation and fine-scale interdigitation. Hippocampal and amygdalar subregions are thus embedded in cortex not as discrete systems, but through structured, spatially organized co-representation.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 08 Jul 2026.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.