Shortcutting from self-motion signals: quantifying trajectories and active sensing in an open maze

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Assessment:

This important work advances our understanding of navigation and path integration in mammals by using a clever behavioral paradigm. The paper provides compelling evidence that mice are able to create and use a cognitive map to find "short cuts" in an environment, using only the location of rewards relative to the point of entry to the environment and path integration, and need not rely on visual landmarks.

Summary:

The authors have designed a novel experimental apparatus called the 'Hidden Food Maze (HFM)' and a beautiful suite of behavioral experiments using this apparatus to investigate the interplay between allothetic and idiothetic cues in navigation. The results presented provide a clear demonstration of the central claim of the paper, namely that mice only need a fixed start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map. The experiments and analyses conducted to test the main claim of the paper -- that the animals have formed a cognitive map -- are conclusive. While I think the results are quite interesting and sound, one issue that needs to be addressed is the framing of how landmarks are used (or not), as discussed below, although I believe this will be a straightforward issue for the authors to address.

Strengths:

The 90-degree rotationally symmetric design and use of 4 distal landmarks and 4 quadrants with their corresponding rotationally equivalent locations (REL) lends itself to teasing apart the influence of path integration and landmark-based navigation in a clever way. The authors use a really complete set of experiments and associated controls to show that mice can use a start location and path integration to develop a cognitive map and generate shortcut routes to new locations.

Weaknesses:

I have two comments. The second comment is perhaps major and would require rephrasing multiple sentences/paragraphs throughout the paper.

(1) The data clearly indicate that in the hidden food maze (HFM) task mice did not use external visual "cue cards" to navigate, as this is clearly shown in the errors mice make when they start trials from a different start location when trained in the static entrance condition. The absence of visual landmark-guided behavior is indeed surprising, given the previous literature showing the use of distal landmarks to navigate and neural correlates of visual landmarks in hippocampal formation. While the authors briefly mention that the mice might not be using distal landmarks because of their pretraining procedure - I think it is worth highlighting this point (about the importance of landmark stability and citing relevant papers) and elaborating on it in greater detail. It is very likely that mice do not use the distal visual landmarks in this task because the pretraining of animals leads to them not identifying them as stable landmarks. For example, if they thought that each time they were introduced to the arena, it was "through the same door", then the landmarks would appear to be in arbitrary locations compared to the last time. In the same way, we as humans wouldn't use clouds or the location of people or other animate objects as trusted navigational beacons. In addition, the animals are introduced to the environment without any extra-maze landmarks that could help them resolve this ambiguity. Previous work (and what we see in our dome experiments) has shown that in environments with 'unreliable' landmarks, place cells are not controlled by landmarks - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390898000537, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7891125/. This makes it likely that the absence of these distal visual landmarks when the animal first entered the maze ensured that the animal does not 'trust' these visual features as landmarks.

(2) I don't agree with the statement that 'Exogenous cues are not required for learning the food location'. There are many cues that the animal is likely using to help reduce errors in path integration. For example, the start location of the rat could act as a landmark/exogenous cue in the sense of partially correcting path integration errors. The maze has four identical entrances (90-degree rotationally symmetric). Despite this, it is entirely plausible that the animal can correct path integration errors by identifying the correct start entrance for a given trial, and indeed the distance/bearing to the others would also help triangulate one's location. Further, the overall arena geometry could help reduce PI error. For example, with a food source learned to be "near the middle" of the arena, the animal would surely not estimate the position to be near the far wall (and an interesting follow-on experiment would be to have two different-sized, but otherwise nearly identical arenas). As the rat travels away from the start location, small path integration errors are bound to accumulate, these errors could be at least partially corrected based on entrance and distal wall locations. If this process of periodically checking the location of the entrance to correct path integration errors is done every few seconds, path integration would be aided 'exogenously' to build a cognitive map. While the original claim of the paper still stands, i.e. mice can learn the location of a hidden food size when their starting point in the environment remains constant across trials. I would advise rewording portions of the paper, including the discussion throughout the paper that states claims such as "Exogenous cues are not required for learning the food location" to account for the possibility that the start and the overall arena geometry could be used as helpful exogenous cues to correct for path integration errors.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports interesting findings about the navigational behavior of mice. The authors have dissected this behavior in various components using a sophisticated behavioral maze and statistical analysis of the data. ​

Strengths:

The results are solid and they support the main conclusions, which will be of considerable value to many scientists.

Weaknesses:

Figure 1: In some trials the mice seem to be doing thigmotaxis, walking along the perimeter of the maze. This is perhaps due to the fear of the open arena. But, these paths along the perimeter would significantly influence all metrics of navigation, e.g. the distance or time to reward. Perhaps analysis can be done that treats such behavior separately and the factors it out from the paths that are away from the perimeter.

Figure 1c: the color axis seems unusual. Red colors indicate less frequently visited regions (less than 25%) and white corresponds to more frequently visited places (>25%)? Why use such a binary measure instead of a graded map as commonly done?

Some figures use linear scale and others use logarithmic scale. Is there a scientific justification? For example, average latency is on a log scale and average speed is on a linear scale, but both quantify the same behavior. The y-axis in panel 1-I is much wider than the data. Is there a reason for this? Or can the authors zoom into the y-axis so that the reader can discern any pattern?

1F shows no significant reduction in distance to reward. Does that mean there is no improvement with experience and all the improvement in the latency is due to increasing running speed with experience?

Figure 3: The distance traveled was reduced by nearly 10-fold and speed increased by by about 3fold. So, the time to reach the reward should decrease by only 3 fold (t=d/v) but that too reduced by 10fold. How does one reconcile the 3fold difference between the expected and observed values?

Figure 4: The reader is confused about the use of a binary color scheme here for the checking behavior: gray for a large amount of checking, and pink for small. But, there is a large ellipse that is gray and there are smaller circles that are also gray, but these two gray areas mean very different things as far as the reader can tell. Is that so? Why not show the entire graded colormap of checking probability instead of such a seemingly arbitrary binary depiction?

Figure 4C: What would explain the large amount of checking behavior at the perimeter? Does that occur predominantly during thigmotaxis?

Was there a correlation between the amount of time spent by the animals in a part of the maze and the amount of reward checking? Previous studies have shown that the two behaviors are often positively correlated, e.g. reference 20 in the manuscript. How does this fit with the path integration hypothesis?

"Scratches and odor trails were eliminated by washing and rotating the maze floor between trials." Can one eliminate scratches by just washing the maze floor? Rotation of the maze floor between trials can make these cues unreliable or variable but will not eliminate them. Ditto for odor cues.

"Possible odor gradient cues were eliminated by experiments where such gradients were prevented with vacuum fans (Fig. S6E)" What tests were done to ensure that these were *eliminated* versus just diminished?

"Probe trials of fully trained mice resulted in trajectories and initial hole checking identical to that of regular trials thereby demonstrating that local odor cues are not essential for spatial learning." As far as the reader can tell, probe trials only eliminated the food odor cues but did not eliminate all other odors. If so, this conclusion can be modified accordingly.
The interpretation of direction selectivity is a bit tricky. At different places in this manuscript, this is interpreted as a path integration signal that encodes goal location, including the Consync cells. However, studies show that (e.g. Acharya et al. 2016) direction selectivity in virtual reality is comparable to that during natural mazes, despite large differences in vestibular cues and spatial selectivity. How would one reconcile these observations with path integration interpretation?

The manuscript would be improved if the speculations about place cells, grid cells, BTSP, etc. were pared down. I could easily imagine the outcome of these speculations to go the other way and some claims are not supported by data. "We note that the cited experiments were done with virtual movement constrained to 1D and in the presence of landmarks. It remains to be shown whether similar results are obtained in our unconstrained 2D maze and with only self-motion cues available." There are many studies that have measured the evolution of place cells in non-virtual mazes, look up papers from the 1990s. Reference 43 reports such results in a 2D virtual maze.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

How is it that animals find learned food locations in their daily life? Do they use landmarks to home in on these learned locations or do they learn a path based on self-motion (turn left, take ten steps forward, turn right, etc.). This study carefully examines this question in a well-designed behavioral apparatus. A key finding is that to support the observed behavior in the hidden food arena, mice appear to not use the distal cues that are present in the environment for performing this task. Removal of such cues did not change the learning rate, for example. In a clever analysis of whether the resulting cognitive map based on self-motion cues could allow a mouse to take a shortcut, it was found that indeed they are. The work nicely shows the evolution of the rodent's learning of the task, and the role of active sensing in the targeted reduction of uncertainty of food location proximal to its expected location.

Strengths:

A convincing demonstration that mice can synthesize a cognitive map for the finding of a static reward using body frame-based cues. This shows that the uncertainty of the final target location is resolved by an active sensing process of probing holes proximal to the expected location. Showing that changing the position of entry into the arena rotates the anticipated location of the reward in a manner consistent with failure to use distal cues.

Weaknesses:

The task is low stakes, and thus the failure to use distal cues at most costs the animal a delay in finding the food; this delay is likely unimportant to the animal. Thus, it is unclear whether this result would generalize to a situation where the animal may be under some time pressure, urgency due to food (or water) restriction, or due to predatory threat. In such cases, the use of distal cues to make locating the reward robust to changing start locations may be more likely to be observed.

Author response:

We would like to thank all the reviewers and editors for their thoughtful and detailed comments, critiques and suggestions. We will revise our manuscript in accordance with all the points raised by the reviewers. Here we summarize some of the main points that we intend to address in our revised manuscript.

The reviewers noted that we were not sufficiently careful in identifying possible exogenous cues that the mice might be using to locate the cues and that we did not consider why such cues might be ineffective. As the reviewers point out, the mice may be ignoring the visual landmarks (and floor scratches) because they are not reliable cues and their relation to the food varies with the entrance the mice have used. In particular, a reviewer refers to papers that show that “in environments with 'unreliable' landmarks, place cells are not controlled by landmarks”. These papers were known to the authors but failed to make final cut of our extensive discussion. This important point will be thoroughly addressed.

Another critical point was the mice were often doing thigmotaxis. The literature on thigmotaxis was known to us and we will now directly refer to this point. We do note that the final average start to food trajectory (TEV) is directly to the food. In other words, the thigmotaxic trajectories and “towards the center” trajectories effectively average out.

There was a very cogent point about the difficulty of totally eliminating odor cues that we will now address. Finally, based on studies using a virtual reality environment, one reviewer questioned the use of “path integration” as a signal that encodes goal location. The relevance of path integration to spatial learning and performance is a very difficult issue that, to our knowledge, has never been entirely settled in the vast spatial learning literature. We do not think that our data can “settle’ this issue but will try to at least be explicit re the complexity of the path integration hypothesis as it applies to both our own data and the virtual reality literature. In particular, we will discuss the potential roles of optic flow versus proprioceptive and vestibular inputs to a putative path integration mechanism.

Finally, the reviewers raised many important technical points re statistics reporting and how the figures are presented. In our revision, we will completely comply with all these helpful critiques.