Eye movements reveal spatiotemporal dynamics of visually-informed planning in navigation

  1. Seren Zhu  Is a corresponding author
  2. Kaushik Janakiraman Lakshminarasimhan
  3. Nastaran Arfaei
  4. Dora E Angelaki
  1. New York University, United States
  2. Columbia University, United States

Abstract

Goal-oriented navigation is widely understood to depend upon internal maps. Although this may be the case in many settings, humans tend to rely on vision in complex, unfamiliar environments. To study the nature of gaze during visually-guided navigation, we tasked humans to navigate to transiently visible goals in virtual mazes of varying levels of difficulty, observing that they took near-optimal trajectories in all arenas. By analyzing participants’ eye movements, we gained insights into how they performed visually-informed planning. The spatial distribution of gaze revealed that environmental complexity mediated a striking tradeoff in the extent to which attention was directed towards two complimentary aspects of the world model: the reward location and task-relevant transitions. The temporal evolution of gaze revealed rapid, sequential prospection of the future path, evocative of neural replay. These findings suggest that the spatiotemporal characteristics of gaze during navigation are significantly shaped by the unique cognitive computations underlying real-world, sequential decision making.

Data availability

Links to data and code are included in the manuscript.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Seren Zhu

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    lt1686@nyu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0555-9690
  2. Kaushik Janakiraman Lakshminarasimhan

    Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nastaran Arfaei

    Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Dora E Angelaki

    Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9650-8962

Funding

National Institutes of Health (U19-NS118246)

  • Seren Zhu
  • Nastaran Arfaei
  • Dora E Angelaki

National Institutes of Health (R01-EY022538)

  • Seren Zhu
  • Nastaran Arfaei
  • Dora E Angelaki

National Science Foundation (DBI-1707398)

  • Kaushik Janakiraman Lakshminarasimhan

Gatsby Charitable Foundation

  • Kaushik Janakiraman Lakshminarasimhan

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, nor the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: All experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at New York University and all participants signed an informed consent form (IRB-FY2019-2599).

Copyright

© 2022, Zhu et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,162
    views
  • 561
    downloads
  • 18
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Seren Zhu
  2. Kaushik Janakiraman Lakshminarasimhan
  3. Nastaran Arfaei
  4. Dora E Angelaki
(2022)
Eye movements reveal spatiotemporal dynamics of visually-informed planning in navigation
eLife 11:e73097.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73097

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73097

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Paul I Jaffe, Gustavo X Santiago-Reyes ... Russell A Poldrack
    Research Article

    Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are the dominant framework for modeling response time (RT) data from speeded decision-making tasks. While providing a good quantitative description of RT data in terms of abstract perceptual representations, EAMs do not explain how the visual system extracts these representations in the first place. To address this limitation, we introduce the visual accumulator model (VAM), in which convolutional neural network models of visual processing and traditional EAMs are jointly fitted to trial-level RTs and raw (pixel-space) visual stimuli from individual subjects in a unified Bayesian framework. Models fitted to large-scale cognitive training data from a stylized flanker task captured individual differences in congruency effects, RTs, and accuracy. We find evidence that the selection of task-relevant information occurs through the orthogonalization of relevant and irrelevant representations, demonstrating how our framework can be used to relate visual representations to behavioral outputs. Together, our work provides a probabilistic framework for both constraining neural network models of vision with behavioral data and studying how the visual system extracts representations that guide decisions.

    1. Neuroscience
    Aneri Soni, Michael J Frank
    Research Article

    How and why is working memory (WM) capacity limited? Traditional cognitive accounts focus either on limitations on the number or items that can be stored (slots models), or loss of precision with increasing load (resource models). Here, we show that a neural network model of prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia can learn to reuse the same prefrontal populations to store multiple items, leading to resource-like constraints within a slot-like system, and inducing a trade-off between quantity and precision of information. Such ‘chunking’ strategies are adapted as a function of reinforcement learning and WM task demands, mimicking human performance and normative models. Moreover, adaptive performance requires a dynamic range of dopaminergic signals to adjust striatal gating policies, providing a new interpretation of WM difficulties in patient populations such as Parkinson’s disease, ADHD, and schizophrenia. These simulations also suggest a computational rather than anatomical limit to WM capacity.