An uncertainty principle for neural coding: Conjugate representations of position and velocity are mapped onto firing rates and co-firing rates of neural spike trains

2019·Arxiv

Abstract

Abstract

The hippocampal system contains neural populations that encode an animal’s position and velocity as it navigates through space. Here, we show that such populations can embed two codes within their spike trains: a ) conveyed by within-cell spike intervals, and a ) conveyed by between-cell spike intervals. These two codes behave as conjugates of one another, obeying an analog of the uncertainty principle from physics: information conveyed in comes at the expense of information in , and vice versa. An exception to this trade-off occurs when spike trains encode a pair of conjugate variables, such as position and velocity, which do not compete for capacity across and . To illustrate this, we describe two biologically inspired methods for decoding and , referred to as sigma and sigma-chi decoding, respectively. Simulations of head direction (HD) and grid cells show that if firing rates are tuned for position (but not velocity), then position is recovered by sigma decoding, whereas velocity is recovered by sigma-chi decoding. Conversely, simulations of oscillatory interference among theta-modulated “speed cells” show that if co-firing rates are tuned for position (but not velocity), then position is recovered by sigma-chi decoding, whereas velocity is recovered by sigma decoding. Between these two extremes, information about both variables can be distributed across both channels, and partially recovered by both decoders. These results suggest that neurons with different spatial and temporal tuning properties—such as speed versus grid cells—might not encode different information, but rather, distribute similar information about position and velocity in different ways across and . Such conjugate coding of position and velocity may influence how hippocampal populations are interconnected to form functional circuits, and how biological neurons integrate their inputs to decode information from firing rates and spike correlations.

INTRODUCTION

The rodent hippocampal system contains populations of neurons that encode an animal’s position and velocity as it navigates through space. In the literature, these populations are named for variables that modulate their firing rates: “head-direction” (HD) cell firing rates are tuned for the angular position of the head (Taube et al., 1990), “grid” cell firing rates are periodically tuned for the animal’s spatial position (Hafting et al., 2005), “place” cell firing rates are non-periodically tuned for the animal’s spatial position (O’Keefe & Dostrovsky, 1971), “border” (or “boundary”) cell firing rates increase (or decrease) near environmental boundaries (Solstad et al., 2008; Savelli et al., 2008; Lever et al., 2009), “speed” cell firing rates increase (or decrease) in proportion with the animal’s running speed (Kropf et al., 2015; Hinman et al., 2016; Gois & Tort, 2018), and “theta” cell firing rates are temporally modulated by 4-12 Hz theta oscillations. Although these monikers accurately describe how the firing rates of individual neurons are tuned, they may not fully describe the information that such neurons encode at the population level, because populations of spiking neurons can encode information not only in their firing rates, but in other ways as well.

Position-tuned neurons (such as place and grid cells) exhibit oscillatory modulation of their spike trains by theta rhythm. Information about the animal’s position can be decoded not only from the firing rates of these neurons (Wilson and McNaughton, 1993), but also from the phases at which spikes occur relative to theta rhythm in the local field potential (O’Keefe and Recce, 1993; Skaggs et al., 1996; Jensen and Lisman, 2000; Hafting et al., 2008; Climer et al., 2013; Jeewajee et al., 2013). Hence, spatially tuned neurons can encode the animal’s position in two different ways: in their firing rates and firing phases. These two codes map the animal’s position into different representational spaces. The firing rate code maps position into a space of “population vectors" where each dimension measures time intervals between pairs of spikes that are both fired by the same neuron (because a neuron’s firing rate is simply the inverse of its mean interspike interval). By contrast, the phase code maps position into a representational space where each dimension measures time intervals (normalized by the theta cycle period) between pairs of spikes that are fired by two different neurons (for example, between a place or grid cell and a neuron that spikes in synchrony with the theta LFP). If neural populations can simultaneously encode information in different ways, then how should information about the world be distributed among different coding channels?

Here, we shall propose how neural populations divide information between two coding channels, which shall be referred to as firing rates versus co-firing rates. It is worthwhile to further explain what is meant here by the term “co-firing rate.” A traditional firing rate code may be considered an example of a within-cell spike code that maps information onto intervals between pairs of spikes fired by the same neuron. By contrast, a phase code may be considered an example of a between-cell spike code that maps information onto intervals between pairs of spikes fired by different neurons. This distinction between within- versus between-cell spike codes is orthogonal to the distinction between “rate” and “time” codes. In addition to being a within-cell spike code, a traditional firing rate code is also a “rate” code (hence the name, firing “rate”), because firing rates are derived by averaging spike intervals over time, and this discards information about precise temporal sequences of spikes. Alternatively, consider a code that represents information using precise temporal sequences of spikes fired by a single neuron; this would be an example of a within-cell spike code that is also a “time” code. Hence, standard firing rate codes are a particular subset of within-cell spike codes, namely, those which map information onto time-averaged within-cell spike intervals (rather than onto temporal patterns of within-cell spike intervals). We may analogously define “co-firing rate codes” to be the subset of between-cell spike codes that map information onto time-averaged between-cell spike intervals, rather than onto temporal patterns of between-cell spike intervals. Note that standard firing rates are an unsigned quantity (there is no such thing as a negative firing rate), but co-firing rates are a signed quantity, because a distinction can be drawn between the mean interval at which a spike from neuron A follows a spike from neuron B (positive co-firing rate) and the mean interval at which a spike from neuron B follows a spike from neuron A (negative co-firing rate). In summary, we define a “rate code” broadly to be any code that maps information onto time-averaged spike intervals, rather than onto temporal patterns of spike intervals. The term “firing rate” shall henceforth refer to time-averaged measurements of within-cell spike intervals, and the term “co-firing rate” shall refer to time-averaged measurements of between-cell spike intervals.

We propose below that firing rates and co-firing rates behave as conjugate coding channels, and consequently, their information content is regulated by principles that mirror the well-known “uncertainty principle” from physics. The uncertainty principle states that the more

accurately we know a particle’s position, the less accurately we can know its momentum (which is identical to velocity, after normalizing for mass), and vice versa. This trade-off arises because positon and velocity are conjugate variables, related to one another via the Fourier transform. Simulations presented below show that a neural population can simultaneously embed two codes within its spike trains: a ) derived from within-cell spike intervals, and a ) derived from between-cell spike intervals. It is postulated that and behave as conjugates of one another, and thus obey an uncertainty principle for neural coding: the more information is encoded by , the less information can be encoded by (and vice versa). Hence, the firing rate and co-firing rate channels together cannot convey more information than either channel alone. But a special case arises when neurons simultaneously encode a variable, , and its conjugate, (for example, position and velocity). In such cases, conjugacy between and complements conjugacy between and , and states of the phase space can be encoded simultaneously in firing rates and co-firing rates, without competition for capacity across channels. The conjugate relationship between and thus confers limitations as well as advantages for packaging information about the world into neural spike trains. We shall express these constraints as a set of formal mathematical postulates (yet to be proven), and discuss how these constraints might influence neural representations of position and velocity in the hippocampal system. We also discuss how conjugate coding might impact the computations that biological neurons perform upon their spike train inputs, enabling them to extract information from both firing rates and co-firing rates.

RESULTS

All simulations presented here shall use simulated spike trains, artificially generated from real behavioral data (no spike trains recorded from biological neurons are used). A single neuron’s spike train shall be represented by a neural response function stored as a series of binary values sampled synchronously at discrete time points,

Computing angular velocity by differentiating HD cell spike trains

In this section, spike trains of HD cells are simulated to encode an animal’s angular head position—but not angular head velocity—in their firing rates. It is shown that head angle can be recovered from the HD cell population’s firing rates by process referred to as sigma decoding. It

Figure 1. Sigma decoder recovers head angle from HD cell firing rates. A) Von Mises tuning functions

were used to simulate spike trains of 12 HD cells. B) Black line shows 10 s sample of head angle data, q; rasters show spike trains of 12 HD cells. C) Head angle data (black line) superimposed over colored lines showing HD cell firing rates derived by Eq. 5 (=200 ms). D) Sigma neurons sum simulated HD cell firing rates to decode sine and cosine components of the head angle. E) Arctangent function recovers the

estimated head angle, , from its sine and cosine components; head angle cannot be recovered by the sigma-chi decoder, .

is further shown that even if individual neurons do not encode information about angular velocity in their firing rates, velocity information can nonetheless be recovered from the HD cell population’s co-firing rates by a process referred to as sigma-chi decoding.

Simulation of HD cell spike trains

where is the preferred firing direction for neuron is the peak firing rate of the HD cell in Hz, is a concentration parameter which regulates the HD tuning width, is the modified Bessel function of order 0, and =1 ms is the time bin resolution. Note that parameters and are not indexed by , because all HD cells shared the same values of these parameters. Fig. 1A shows HD tuning curves for simulated HD cells with Hz and . At each time step, the value of was used as a binary threshold on the output of pseudorandom number generator, to stochastically determine whether HD cell fired a spike at time . The binary values generated by this stochastic process filled a spike response matrix (Eq. 2) for the HD cell population. Fig. 1B shows spike rasters for 12 simulated HD cells during a 10 s segment of head angle data.

Sigma decoding: Recovering head angle from HD cell firing rates

Step 1: Converting spike trains into firing rates. HD cell spike trains were converted into firing rates via a process intended to mimic temporal integration at synapses. The input to this process is a spike response matrix (Eq. 2), and the output is a firing rate response matrix:

Each column of this matrix, , is a population vector containing

instantaneous HD cell firing rates measured at time . Each row, , is a time series of firing rate estimates for a single HD cell obtained by convolving its spike train with an exponential decay kernel,

Individual elements of the decay kernel, , are given by

where is the decay constant, and indexes time bins with positive offsets from (kernel weights were uniformly zero for negative time offsets). Fig. 1C illustrates examples of simulated HD cell firing rates with ms.

Step 2: Converting firing rates into angle components. Firing rates were converted into

Figure 2. Accuracy-latency tradeoff for spike train decoding. A) Mean-squared error (MSE; y-axis) for decoding angular head position from simulated HD cell firing rates at varying latencies (x-axis); larger decay constants () improve decoding accuracy at a cost of increased latency. B) MSE for decoding angular velocity from simulated HD cell co-firing rates at varying latencies; optimal latencies are approximately doubled from those in ‘A’ because the sigma-chi decoder of co-firing rates uses two temporal integration steps.

Recovering head angle via the arctangent function. The final decoding step, , was performed by taking the arctangent of decoder neuron outputs at each time step:

Figure 1E shows that (red line) provides an accurate estimate of (black line), except that is delayed in time with respect to by a latency that is approximately equal to the exponential decay constant (ms for the simulation shown). The dynamics of the animal’s head turning set an upper bound on , because the decay constant must not be set so large that can undergo large changes within the span of the integration time window. Below this upper bound, there is a tradeoff between accuracy and latency of the decoded position signal, such that increasing to integrate over longer time periods improves the accuracy of (since a larger time window contains more spikes and thus more information), at a cost of delaying the decoded signal in time (Fig. 2A). This type of latency shift can be eliminated if inputs to the decoder are modulated by velocity as well as position (Eliasmith, 2005), but this trick will not be utilized here, because our purpose is to demonstrate how velocity information can be recovered from co-firing rates in the case where individual firing rates exclusively encode position, and contain no information about velocity.

Sigma-chi decoding: Recovering angular velocity from HD cell co-firing rates

Simulated HD cell firing rates were modulated only by the angular head position, and not by the angular head velocity (Eq. 3). Nonetheless, can be decoded from HD cell spike trains using a process we shall refer to as sigma-chi decoding, which involves a sequence of

Figure 3. Chi rates for a pair of HD cells. A) Black line shows 10 s sample of the head angle q, red line shows angular head velocity during the same period; colored lines show preferred firing directions for simulated HD cells i and j (which are the same as HD cells 1 and 3, respectively, from Fig. 1). B,C) Dependency of chi rates (B) and (C) upon angular velocity during two time periods when <0 and >0 (gray shading; see main text for further explanation).

Step 1: Deriving chi rates from spike train pairs. The firing rate of a single spike train is

inversely proportional to the interspike intervals (ISIs) between pairs of spikes in the train, and can thus be measured via leaky integration of the spike train (Eq. 5). We analogously define the chi rate for a pair of spike trains, and , to be a quantity that is inversely proportional to ISIs between pairs of spikes where one spike comes from neuron , and the other from neuron :

Figure 3 illustrates how is influenced by and for the case where neurons and are HD cells with nearby preferred directions, and . These two HD cells only

Step 2: Pooling chi rates to derive co-firing rates. Given a population of spiking

Figure 4. Sigma-chi units compute co-firing rates that encode angular head velocity. A) Chi rate matrix contains diagonal bands along which simulated HD cell pairs share the same angle of separation, . B) Sigmachi units compute co-firing rates by summing chi rates along each diagonal band. C) Each sigma-chi unit’s co-firing rate exhibits selective tuning for angular head velocity.

where indexes each of the matrix elements along diagonal . By summing up chi rates in this way, sigma-chi units acquire direction-independent sensitivity to angular velocity.

Figure 5. Sigma-chi decoder recovers angular velocity from HD cell co-firing rates. A) Colored lines show 10 s sample of co-firing rates computed by 12 sigma-chi units; gray line shows angular velocity during the simulation. B) True angular head velocity data (black) plotted alongside angular velocity signals recovered from co-firing rates via the sigma-chi decoder (), and from firing rates via the sigma decoder ().

Step 3: Decoding velocity from sigma-chi units. Across time, the sigma-chi rates defined

by Eq. 10 form a co-firing rate response matrix:

Figure 6. Conjugate representations of position and velocity. A) Spike trains from a ring of 12 simulated HD cells are fed to a sigma or sigma-chi decoder. B) Decoding error (MSE, y-axis) was computed over a range of integration time constants: =.4, .2, .1, .05, .025, .01 s (x-axis, plotted on a log10 scale); head angle was accurately decoded from HD cell firing rates () for all , but was near chance levels when decoded from co-firing rates (), and decoding from both channels () did not improve upon decoding from firing rates alone. C) Angular velocity was accurately decoded from simulated HD cell co-firing rates () using sufficiently large integration time constant (>.1), but could not be decoded from firing rates () at any ; decoding from both channels () did not improve upon decoding from co-firing rates alone.

Sigma-chi units perform an operation of neural differentiation to derive from . This differentiation process may be regarded as an inversion of the standard path integration process by which HD cells are proposed to derive from in attractor-integrator network models (Zhang, 1996). Since the velocity signal encoded by is delayed in time, it shall be referred to as a post-positional velocity signal, to distinguish it from pre-positional velocity signals (such as vestibular outputs) that normally would be used for angular path integration.

Conjugacy of firing rates and co-firing rates

To derive , HD cell co-firing rates (instead of firing rates) were delivered as input to the sine and cosine decoder neurons (Fig. 6A). The pseudoinverse method was then used to

find a weight vector that minimized error between and . Decoding accuracy was tested on a novel set of spike trains derived from head angle data that was independent from the data

used to derive the weights. Fig. 1E shows that (blue line) generated chance-level estimates the true head angle for the 10 s example dataset. To further test whether co-firing rates

These simulations show that when simulated HD cell spike trains encode only the head angle (but not angular velocity) in their firing rates, the firing rate and co-firing rate channels convey orthogonal representations of position and velocity. Firing rates exclusively encode information about angular position (and not angular velocity), whereas co-firing rates exclusively encode information about angular velocity (and not angular position).

Computing speed by differentiating grid cell spike trains

In much the same way that HD cells encode a periodic representation of an animal’s angular head position, grid cells encode a periodic representation of an animal’s translational position within a spatial environment. In this section, it is shown that when grid cell spike trains are fed as input to the sigma-chi decoder, sigma-chi neurons behave similarly to “speed cells” that have been reported in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex (Kropf et al., 2015; Hinman et al., 2016; Gois & Tort, 2018).

Simulation of grid cell spike trains

When a rat runs on a circular track, grid cells fire periodically as a function of the distance travelled around the track’s circumference (Pierre-Yves et al., 2019). To simulate this periodic firing, grid cell spike trains were generated from position data that was obtained as a rat

Figure 7. Decoding position and running speed from grid cells. A) Von Mises tuning functions were used to simulate periodic spatial tuning of grid cells on a circular track. B) Black line shows 15 s sample of position data, ; rasters show spike trains of 12 simulated grid cells. C) True position (black line) superimposed over position decoded from firing rates () and co-firing rates (). D) True running speed (black line) superimposed over running speed decoded from firing rates () and co-firing rates (). E) Speed tuning of co-firing rates generated by different sigma-chi neurons (indexed by m). F) Latency of speed tuning is proportional to the value of integration time constants.

Decoding position and speed from grid cell spike trains

Fig. 7B shows spike rasters for 12 simulated grid cells over a 15 s time period during which the rat ran almost 2/3 lap on the track (which is nearly 2 complete traversals of the spacing interval, ). Fig. 7C shows that the sigma decoder accurately recovers (but fails to recover running speed) from grid cell firing rates ( ms in these simulations). Conversely, Fig. 7D shows that the sigma-chi decoder accurately recovers running speed (but fails to recover ) from grid cell co-firing rates. When grid cell spike trains are used as inputs to the sigma-chi decoder, the sigma-chi units exhibit tuning for running speed (Fig. 7E) that is qualitatively similar to the tuning of “speed cells” in the rodent entorhinal cortex and hippocampus (Kropf et al., 2015; Hinman et al., 2016; Gois & Tort, 2018). The speed signal encoded by co-firing rates is delayed in time by an amount proportional to the integration time constants and . Hence, the sigma-chi units are best tuned for the animal’s past running speed (Fig. 7F), rather than present or future running speed. Sigma-chi units thus behave similarly to a subset of speed cells in the rodent brain which have been observed to lag the animal’s running speed in time (Kropf et al., 2015).

Computing positon by integrating theta cell spike trains

Simulations presented above show that if a population of spiking neurons (HD cells or grid cells) encodes a position signal in their firing rates, then they can simultaneously encode a velocity signal in their co-firing rates. Suppose now that we wish to invert this coding scheme, so that velocity is encoded by firing rates, and position is encoded by co-firing rates. How could this be done? This may seem like a counterintuitive exercise for those accustomed to thinking about population vector codes composed from neural firing rates, because we seek to construct a neural code for position in which individual neurons exhibit no tuning whatsoever of their firing rates for position. As it turns out, there exists a class of spatial coding models called “oscillatory interference models” that are based upon precisely this idea (Burgess et al., 2007; Giocomo et al., 2007a; Blair et al., 2008). In such models, oscillatory modulation of spike trains occurs in such a way that position information is conveyed by between-cell spike intervals (i.e., spike correlations), rather than within-cell spike intervals (i.e., firing rates). Simulations presented below show that when an oscillatory interference code is constructed from simulated theta cells, position information can be recovered from theta cell co-firing rates using a sigma-chi decoding process similar to that used above for recovering velocity information from HD cell or grid cell co-firing rates, and velocity information can be recovered from theta cell firing rates using the same sigma decoding process that was used above to recover position information from HD cell or grid cell firing rates. Hence, an oscillatory interference code for position may be viewed as the conjugate inverse of a population vector code for position, because information about position and velocity is perfectly swapped out between the firing rate and co-firing rate channels.

Simulation of theta cell spike trains

To simulate phase coding of position on a circular track by theta cells, we assume the existence of a reference oscillator against which theta cells shift their phases as a function of the animal’s position. To mimic the rhythmicity of theta cell spike trains, all simulations used a

reference oscillator with a constant frequency of 7 Hz (radians/sec). The time-varying phase of a theta cell can then be expressed as an offset, , from this reference oscillator,

where is the reference phase and is the instantaneous phase of theta cell . Here, all of the simulated theta cells shifted their phases against the reference oscillator (and none remained in fixed synchrony with it), so the reference oscillator was not explicitly represented by any of the theta cell spike trains. We may now define a phase offset matrix,

To compute the probability of spiking at each time step, we first created a “seed spike train” for each theta cell, denoted . This is a binary spike response function (Eq. 1) containing a single spike at every time step where theta cell passes through perfect phase synchrony with the reference oscillator. The probability of spiking for theta cell at each time step was then computed by convolving the seed spike train with a Gaussian kernel:

Figure 8. Sigma-chi decoder recovers position from theta cell co-firing rates. A) Two sets of 12 simulated theta cells resided in ring oscillators with phase slopes of equal and opposite sign. B) Autocorrelgrams for theta cells in each ring. C) Rasters show 2 s sample of theta-modulated spike trains in the two rings. D) Sigma-chi decoder converts simulated theta cell spike trains into chi rates () and then into co-firing rates encoded by activity of sigma-chi neurons (inset shows autocorrelogram for a sigma-chi neuron). E) Sigma-chi neurons behave like grid cells with periodic spatial tuning on the circular track. F) Sine and cosine components of angular position on the interval are decoded via vector summation. G) The atan2 function converts output from sine and cosine decoder neurons into an accurate prediction, ), of position on the track.

where sets the maximum spike probability within a single time step, and is a Gaussian kernel of unit amplitude. Here we used ms as the width of the Gaussian kernel in all

simulations. To prevent the spike probability from exceeding in any time bin, convolution was performed separately on even and odd numbered spikes within (see Methods).

Ring oscillators

To construct a phase code for position, we shall group theta cells into subpopulations that form ring oscillators (Blair et al., 2014). Each ring oscillator is a circular array of theta cells through which a “bump” of activity circulates at a rate of once per theta cycle. To simulate bump circulation, phase offset parameters of theta cells within a ring are staggered at even spacings throughout the cycle by assigning , where indexes theta cells within the ring, and is the total number of theta cells within a ring (for all simulations presented here). Hence, theta cells exhibit preferred phases that are evenly space around the theta cycle, in much the same way that the preferred directions of HD cells were evenly spaced around the circle in simulations above.

Decoding position from theta cell co-firing rates

Since theta cell phases are dependent upon (Eq. 16), the rat’s angular position on the track can be decoded from co-firing rates via the sigma-chi decoding process, which in this case has four steps: . In this section, we shall write to denote the time

series of angular track positions recovered from co-firing rates via the sigma-chi decoder, and to denote the time series of true positions.

Step 1: Deriving chi rates from spike trains. The first decoding step, , converts

Step 2: Pooling chi rates to derive co-firing rates. The second decoding step, ,

Figure 9. Sigma decoder recovers velocity from theta cell firing rates. A) Graphs plot dependence of simulated theta cell firing rates (y-axis) upon running speed (x-axis) for different values of the phase slope parameter, ; theta cells with positive and negative phase slopes are plotted blue and brown, respectively. B) Autocorrelograms for theta cells plotted in ‘A.’ C) Actual running speed (black) superimposed with decoded speed (red) during a 60 s period of running on the circular track; top four graphs show decoded from 24 theta cells with phase slopes (12 positive, 12 negative) in ‘A’; bottom graph shows running speed decoded from all theta cells in top four graphs combined (96 theta cell in total, 48 with positive and 48 with negative phase slopes).

Step 3: Converting co-firing rates into angle components. The third decoding step,

Decoding velocity from theta cell firing rates

Step 1: Deriving theta cell firing rates from their spike trains. The first decoding step,

, converts theta cell spike trains into firing rates. For simulations presented here, theta cell spike trains were converted into firing rates using Eq. 5. As explained above, each theta cell’s burst frequency varies with running speed in accordance with Eq. 16. However, we define “firing rate” to mean the rate at which individual spikes occur—not the rate at which theta bursts occur—so it does not automatically follow from Eq. 17 that theta cell firing rates must vary with running speed. Nonetheless, since a theta cell’s spike probability oscillates with its burst frequency (Eq. 18), it turns out that theta cells do indeed behave as “speed cells” with firing rates that are modulated by running speed. Firing rates of theta cells residing in paired rings and were modulated by running speed with a steepness that was inversely proportional to their phase slopes, and (Fig. 9A). Theta cells with positive phase slopes (increased their firing rates with running speed, and those with negative phase slopes () decreased their firing rates with running speed. Fig. 9B shows autocorrelograms for simulated theta cells over a range of different phase slopes.

Figure 10. Segregation of position and velocity into co-firing and firing rate channels. A) Four complementary pairs of ring oscillators contain a total of 96 simulated theta cells; firing rates are fed to a sigma decoder, and co-firing rates are fed to a sigma-chi decoder. B) Angular position (, y-axis) is accurately decoded from co-firing rates () but not firing rates () of theta cells for all spatial periods (L) and integration time constants (=.4, .2, .1, .05, .025, or .01 s; x-axis plots t on a log scale). C) Running speed (, y-axis) is accurately decoded from firing rates () but not co-firing rates () of theta cells for sufficiently large integration time constants (x-axis).

Step 2: Decoding running speed from firing rates. The second decoding step, ,

converts theta cell firing rates into an estimate of the animal’s running speed. We have already seen that theta cell firing rates are modulated by running speed, so in principle, it should be easy to decode the animal’s running speed from theta cell firing rates. However, when we used the pseudoinverse method to derive weights that minimized the error between and for theta cells with cm, the fit was not good when the decoder was tested on data independent from the training set (Fig 9C, top panel). This is because the accuracy of speed decoding is proportional to the slope with which velocity modulates theta cell firing rates, which in turn is inversely proportional to , and setting cm yields a slope that is too shallow for accurate speed decoding. This problem is easily remedied by using theta cells with steeper phase slopes, which increases the slope of velocity modulation (and also decreases the vertex spacing, , of grid cells formed via the sigma-chi decoding process; see Fig. 10A). Fig. 9C shows that velocity decoding progressively improved with steeper slopes of velocity modulation, becoming quite accurate for cm, which yields a vertex spacing of cm for grid cells simulated by sigma-chi neurons; this is within the range of experimentally observed vertex spacings for grid cells (Hafting et al., 2005).

There is no biological requirement for all ring oscillators to share the same value of ; in fact, different values of yield sigma-chi neurons that mimic grid cells with different vertex spacings. Thus, we simulated multiple ring oscillators with different phase slopes. Four pairs of ring oscillators (8 rings in all, with 12 theta cells in each ring) containing a total of 96 theta cells were assigned phase slopes cm, cm, cm, and cm. Fig. 10B shows that when spike trains from these four ring pairs were fed into a sigma-chi decoder (configured so that chi rates were derived within but not between ring pairs), it was possible to accurately recover the animal’s position on intervals of length cm, 94 cm, cm, and cm, which are the vertex spacings of grid cells simulated by sigma-chi neurons formed from each ring pair. A sigma neuron summing inputs from all 96 theta cells (using weights assigned via the pseudoinverse method on an independent training dataset) accurately recovered the animal’s running speed from theta cell firing rates (Fig. 10C).

Conjugate coding of position and velocity

Results shown in Figs. 8-10 demonstrate that theta cells can simultaneously encode position information in their co-firing rates, while also encoding velocity (running speed) information in their firing rates. As explained above, the theta cell population was constructed to contain pairs of ring oscillators with equal and opposite phase slopes (Fig. 9A), so that was decoded from each ring pair on a spatially periodic interval of length (which was determined by the phase slopes for that ring pair). We now show that if co-firing rates are computed exclusively within (and not between) these complementary ring pairs, then position () and running speed () information become perfectly segregated into the co-firing and firing rate channels, respectively. This can be demonstrated by swapping the decoders, and thereby attempting to recover from co-firing rates and from firing rates. We shall write to denote position recovered from firing rates, and to denote velocity recovered from co-firing rates.

Co-firing rates of non-complementary ring oscillator pairs

Given a set of ring oscillators, there are unique non-ordered pairings between different rings. In the simulations of Fig. 10, we used 8 ring oscillators (4 pairs of complementary rings), which yields a total of 28 non-ordered pairings. However, we only computed co-firing rates from 4 of these 28 possible pairings, because as explained above, the 4 pairings between complementary rings have the special property of yielding co-firing rates which only contain position (and not velocity) information.

It is certainly possible to derive co-firing rates from non-complementary ring pairs, but co-firing rates computed in this way will contain information about both position and velocity, rather than just position. To demonstrate this, Fig. 11 shows results from simulations of 4 ring oscillators—each containing 12 theta cells (for a total of 48 theta cells in all)—which were all assigned to have positive phase slopes: cm, cm, cm, and +39 cm. There are 6 unique non-ordered pairings among these 4 rings, and since all rings have positive phase slopes, there are no complementary pairs. Fig. 11B shows that position can only be decoded from co-firing rates (but not firing rates) of theta cells residing in non-complementary ring pairs, a result similar to that shown above for complementary ring pairs. However, Fig. 11C shows that running speed can now be recovered from either firing rates or co-firing rates of theta cells residing in non-complementary ring pairs, and the most accurate decoding is obtained when running speed is recovered from both together. This is in marked contrast with simulations in Fig. 10, where running speed was not decodable from co-firing rates

Figure 11. Position and velocity coding with non-complementary ring oscillators. A) Co-firing rates are derived from six unique pairings among four ring oscillators, all with positive phase slopes. B) Angular position can be decoded from co-firing rates on six different length intervals (=22.5, 25, 34, 39, 67, 235.5 cm); decoding error (MSE, y-axis) is low when angular position is decoded from theta cell co-firing rates () but near chance levels when decoded from firing rates (); x-axis plots integration time constant (=.4, .2, .1, .05, .025, .01 s) on a log10 scale. C) Running speed (, y-axis) can be decoded from either firing rates () or co-firing rates () of simulated theta cells, and is most accurate when decoded from both together ().

of complementary ring pairs. However, Fig. 11C shows that position can still only be decoded from co-firing rates (but not firing rates) of theta cells residing in non-complementary ring pairs, a result similar to that shown for complementary ring pairs in Fig 10. We shall now add positional modulation of firing rates to the non-complementary ring model of Fig. 11, to demonstrate how the same information can be encoded by a population of speed cells versus grid cells, despite their different firing rate tuning.

Figure 12. Adding position information to firing rate channel comes at the expense of information in other channels. A,B) Graphs show autocorrelograms (top), position tuning (middle), and speed tuning (bottom) for simulated speed cells (A) and grid cells (B). C,D) Mean position error (C) at length scale 157 cm and speed error for the sigma, sigma-chi, and combined decoders. E) Mean position error at length scales encoded by the six ring pairs for the sigma-chi (top), sigma (middle), and combined (bottom) decoders. All simulations conducted using =100 ms.

Speed and grid cells can encode the same information

Fig. 12 compares results from simulations of speed cells versus grid cells; for simplicity, all simulations used ms. Speed cells were simulated using the same model as in Fig. 11, as a population of theta neurons residing in four non-complementary ring oscillators. Hence, speed cells exhibited strong theta modulation of their spike trains (Fig. 12A, top), linear modulation of their firing rates by running speed (Fig. 12A, bottom), and no modulation of their firing rates by position on the track (Fig. 12A, middle). Grid cell spike trains were simulated by probabilistically re-sorting the speed cell spike trains in time (see Methods), so that their firing rates became periodically tuned for position with a period of cm (spatial phases of the 12 cells in each ring were evenly spaced across ). Importantly, this re-sorting was done in such a way that the total number of spikes fired by each neuron was preserved, so that no position or velocity information was added or subtracted merely by increasing or decreasing the total number of spikes. But since the re-sorting was probabilistic, some (but not all) of the original theta and speed modulation in the pre-sorted spike trains was preserved after sorting. Resorting spike trains to convert speed cells into grid cells thus endowed the neurons with periodic spatial tuning (Fig. 12B, middle), while also reducing the depth of theta modulation (Fig. 12B, top) and the slope of speed modulation (Fig. 12B, bottom).

We then analyzed how adding position information to the firing rate channel (by re-sorting spikes) affected the amount of information about position and velocity that was conveyed by firing rates versus co-firing rates. Fig. 12C (red bars) shows that when the rat’s position

within the interval cm was decoded from firing rates, the decoding error was near chance levels for speed cells, but near zero for grid cells. Hence, as expected, position information was conveyed by the firing rates of grid cells but not speed cells. Fig. 12C (blue bars) shows that when the rat’s position within the interval cm was decoded from co-firing rates, the decoding error was near chance levels for both speed and grid cells, because no pair of ring oscillators encoded the rat’s position on a length scale of cm in their co-firing rates. By contrast, when the rat’s position was decoded from co-firing rates on any of the length scales that were encoded by one of the six ring oscillator pairs, the decoding error was very small for speed cells (as already shown above in Fig. 11) and significantly larger (though still far below chance levels) for grid cells (Fig. 12E, blue bars). This demonstrates that when speed cells were converted to grid cells, adding position information to the firing rate channel came at the expense of position information in the co-firing rate channel, in accordance with an uncertainty trade-off between firing rates and co-firing rates: the more information the firing rate channel conveys about a given variable (in this case, positon), the less information about that variable can be conveyed in the conjugate co-firing rate channel, and vice versa. Note that when position was decoded from firing rates on the length scales encoded by co-firing rates (Fig. 12E, red bars), the decoding error was near chance levels for both speed and grid cells; for this reason, the error when decoding from both firing and co-firing rates together was nearly identical to the error when decoding from co-firing rates alone (Fig. 12E, black bars).

Fig. 12D (black bars) shows that when the rat’s running speed was decoded from firing rates and co-firing rates together, the decoding error was nearly identical for speed cells and grid cells. Hence, adding position information to the firing rate channel did not come at the expense of the total velocity information; together, the firing and co-firing rate channels conveyed just as much information about running speed before versus after position information was added to the firing rate channel. But importantly, information about running speed was redistributed between the firing rate and co-firing rate channels. Fig. 12D shows that speed cells had lower sigma than sigma-chi decoding error for running speed, and thus conveyed more information about velocity in their firing rates than co-firing rates; since speed cells were more strongly modulated by theta than grid cells, this is fully consistent with simulations from Fig. 9 above, showing that theta cells preferentially encode velocity information in their firing rates. By contrast, grid cells had lower sigma-chi than sigma decoding error for running speed, and thus conveyed more information about velocity in their co-firing rates than firing rates; this is fully consistent with simulations in Fig. 5-7 above, showing that neurons with position-tuned firing rates (such as HD cells and grid cells) preferentially encode velocity information in their co-firing rates. But importantly, the total amount of velocity information conveyed by firing rates and co-firing rates together was not different for speed and grid cells. What this suggests is that position and velocity information only compete with one another for coding capacity within a single

across coding channels. We take this as evidence for an uncertainty principle that governs neural coding of conjugate variables by conjugate coding channels. We shall now articulate this hypothesized uncertainty principle in a formal and falsifiable way.

An uncertainty principle for neural coding of conjugate variables

In quantum physics, the uncertainty principle states that the more information we have about a particle’s position, the less we can know about its momentum (or velocity), and vice

Between-channel uncertainty trade-off

where denotes a Cramer-Rao bound for estimating from both decoders together. This equation expresses our postulate that a single stimulus cannot be more accurately encoded by firing rates and co-firing rates together than by either firing rates or co-firing rates alone. Evidence for this postulate is provided in simulations of Fig. 12, where it was shown that adding position information to the firing rate channel caused a reduction the amount of position information conveyed by the co-firing rate channel, as Eq. 19 would predict.

Uncertainty trade-off within coding channels

where denotes a Cramer-Rao bound for the sigma decoder. Evidence for this postulate is provided by the simulations of Fig. 12, where it was shown that adding position information to the firing rate channel caused a reduction in the amount of velocity information conveyed by the firing rate channel, as predicted by Eq. 20. For the co-firing rate channel, the same withinchannel trade-off may be written as

where denotes a Cramer-Rao bound for the sigma-chi decoder. Evidence for this postulate is again provided by simulations of Fig. 12, where it was shown that a reduction in the amount of position information in the co-firing rate channel was accompanied by an increase in the amount of velocity information conveyed by the co-firing rate channel, consistent with Eq. 21.

Conjugate coding of conjugate variables

We have proposed that that if one coding channel conveys information about , then this must come at the expense of conveying information about in the other channel (Eq. 19), and must also come at the expense of conveying information about withing the same channel (Eqs 20 and 21). But does conveying information about within one channel come at the expense of conveying information about in the other channel? We postulate that the answer is no, because the conjugacy between and mirrors the conjugacy between and . Consequently, conveying information about in one channel does not consume the other channel’s capacity to convey information about . In summary, two conjugate variables only compete with one another for coding capacity within conjugate coding channels, but do not compete with one another for capacity between conjugate coding channels. In the Discussion, we shall explore how this conjugate coding principle might yield new insights into how position and velocity information are represented by neural populations in the hippocampus, how real biological neurons extract information from their spike train inputs, and what role oscillations may play in neural computations that process information about conjugate variables.

DISCUSSION

A neural code maps states of the world onto states of the brain, and thus implements a function of the form , where is a domain of world states, and is a range of brain states. In simulations above, we showed that a population of spiking neurons can simultaneously convey information via two coding channels: a ) conveyed by within-cell spike intervals, and a ) conveyed by between-cell spike intervals (that is, correlations among spike trains). Together, these two coding channels define a representational space, , that contains a larger number of states than or alone, which in turn suggests that firing rates and spike correlations might together possess a greater capacity to convey information than either channel alone. Consistent with this idea, empirical evidence shows that decoding a rodent’s position from spike rates and phases of hippocampal place cells is more accurate than decoding from rate or phase alone (Jensen and Lisman, 2000), and head direction can be more accurately decoded from both the firing rates and spike correlations of HD cells than from either source alone (Peyrache et al., 2015). However, and are not independent coding channels, since almost any change to a spike train’s firing rate will

also change its correlation with other spike trains, and thus affect co-firing rates as well. While empirical evidence may show that information can be simultaneously conveyed via firing rates as well as spike correlations, this does not tell us whether the information conveyed via one channel has come at the expense of information that might otherwise have been conveyed in the other channel. Firing rates and spike correlations are “entangled” with one another, and therefore, it is not obvious whether more information can be encoded by both channels together than by either channel alone.

An uncertainty principle for neural coding

We thus postulated that the full capacity of and becomes available when spike trains encode information about a pair of conjugate variables. Such cases are of broad interest, because almost any computational task that requires the brain to encode a dynamically changing state variable will also require encoding that same variable’s time derivative (i.e., its conjugate). Here, we have focused attention upon dual coding of position and velocity in hippocampal systems to support spatial navigation. But position and velocity are encoded by many other sensory and motor systems as well. Other examples of conjugate variable pairs that are encoded by neural circuits include velocity and acceleration, expected reward and prediction error, phase and frequency, and so on. The conjugate coding principle suggests that whenever and wherever populations of spiking neurons encode pairs of conjugate variables in the brain, a single population of neurons can simultaneously distribute information about both variables across firing rates and co-firing rates. As discussed below, some computational problems may become easier and more efficient to solve under this flexibility to choose between alternative representations for and . Recognizing these advantages may help us to better understand why identified neural populations generate specific patterns of neural spiking (such as peak-shaped tuning functions and neural oscillations), how different populations are interconnected to form functional circuits, and how individual neurons integrate spike train inputs to decode information from both firing rates and spike correlations.

The dual coding spectrum

Schemes for dual coding of conjugate variables reside along a spectrum that spans two extreme endpoints. At one endpoint are cases where is encoded exclusively by firing rates

At the other extreme endpoint of the dual coding spectrum are cases where is encoded exclusively by firing rates () and is encoded exclusively by co-firing rates (). The core mechanism for constructing such a code is for firing rates of individual neurons to exhibit linear tuning for in conjunction with peak-shaped tuning for oscillatory phase, which causes information about and to become packaged into co-firing rates and firing rates, respectively. The role of oscillatory modulation in constructing such codes is not to impose a precise pattern of temporal firing on the spikes (co-firing rate codes are not time codes, as explained in the introduction), but rather to endow co-firing rates with the correct sign (positive or negative) under the coding scheme that they implement (because unlike firing rates, co-firing rates are signed quantities). The period of oscillatory modulation thus sets a time scale for sign reversal of co-firing rates. Coding of position by co-firing rates was demonstrated in simulations of theta-modulated speed cells (Figs. 8-10), but here again, a similar coding scheme could be used to convey information about other pairs of conjugate variables, such as velocity and acceleration, or expected reward and prediction error. For example, encoding velocity () in co-firing rates would require acceleration () to linearly modulate firing rate differences between oscillatory neurons, and encoding expected reward () in co-firing rates would require prediction error () to linearly modulate firing rate differences between oscillatory neurons.

because different computations can be performed more efficiently at different points along the dual coding spectrum, so that the flexibility to represent the same information at different points along the spectrum allows a wider range of computations to be optimized (see below).

Single-neuron computation

To model how information can be extracted from and , we introduced two biologically inspired decoding methods, sigma and sigma-chi decoding, which extract information from within- versus between-cell spike intervals, respectively. Sigma decoding is similar to computations performed by model neurons in standard artificial neural networks, which are typically composed of simplified linear units that compute weighted sums of their firing rate inputs, and thus derive their outputs as a function of (but not of ). By contrast, sigma-chi decoding requires nonlinear computations to detect correlations among different spike trains, and such computations are not easily reducible to simple weighted linear summation of firing rate inputs (for review, see Mel, 2007). Unlike simple linear neurons in artificial networks, biological neurons have large dendritic trees with detailed branching patterns, endowing them with complex anatomical and electrotonic structure. It has been shown that the dendrites of hippocampal pyramidal cells (Makara & Magee, 2013) and entorhinal stellate cells (SchmidtHieber et al., 2017) can perform nonlinear integration of their spike train inputs, which might allow dendrites to perform operations similar to the derivation of chi rates (Eq. 9) that underlie sigma-chi decoding in our simulations. Thus, a single neuron might compute different chi rates in each of its dendrites, and then then pool multiple chi rates together at the soma (Eq. 10) to derive its output as a function of instead of (or in addition to) . A network composed from such sigma-chi neurons would have flexibility to perform computations that operate on representations in as well as . At the circuit level, this flexibility might facilitate novel, efficient solutions to certain computational problems that are unavailable in standard network models composed from linear “sigma” neurons that only operate upon representations in .

Circuit-level computations

A wide range of theoretical models have been proposed to explain how neural populations in the hippocampal system—such as place cells, grid cells, border cells HD cells, speed cells, and theta cells—might be functionally interconnected with one another to solve navigational problems such as cognitive mapping, self-localization, and trajectory planning (for review, see Hinman et al, 2018). One type of problem solved such networks is trajectory planning, that is, finding the best path through an environment from a start location to a goal. This problem bears resemblance calculating a “path of least action” in classical mechanics, since it involves finding the trajectory that agent should follow as it is influenced by multiple “forces” (goal seeking, obstacle avoidance, effort minimization, etc.). To solve the equations of motion that guide an object along a complex trajectory, physicists rely upon convenient mathematical representations—such as the LaGrangian or Hamiltonian—that cleanly separate the influences of conjugate variables (such as position and momentum) into distinct mathematical terms of a single equation. It is interesting to speculate that neural circuits might employ a similar strategy for simplifying complex trajectory-finding problems, by representing position and velocity in distinct coding channels (firing rates versus co-firing rates) of a single

Neural differentiation

Pre- versus post-positional velocity signals

We use the term “post-positional velocity signals” to describe speed or velocity signals that are derived by differentiating position signals (e.g., via sigma-chi decoding). This is to draw a distinction with “pre-positional” velocity signals that could be derived from the motor or vestibular systems, independently of any positional code. There is evidence that pre- and post-positional velocity signals co-exist in the hippocampal system: some speed cells are prospectively correlated with the animal’s future running speed, while others are retrospectively correlated with the past running speed (Kropf et al., 2015). If post-positional speed cells derive their speed tuning via differentiation of position signals, then they should lose their speed modulation following any disruption of the position signal that they differentiate. For example, if retrospective speed cells derive their tuning by differentiating inputs from grid cells (as in simulations of Fig. 7E), then disrupting grid cells should disrupt these retrospective speed cells. Medial septum inactivation has been shown to impair grid cell firing (Brandon et al., 2011; Koenig et al. 2011) while sparing speed cell firing (Hinman et al., 2016) in entorhinal cortex; however, entorhinal speed cells are biased toward prospective coding (Kropf et al., 2015), and may thus not derive their speed tuning by differentiating position signals. By contrast, hippocampal speed cells tend to show a bias for retrospective speed coding (Kropf et al., 2015), so these cells might be more likely to lose their speed tuning after place or grid cells are disrupted. To our knowledge, this has not yet been experimentally tested, but one testable

prediction of the conjugate coding hypothesis is that some retrospective speed cells should show impaired speed tuning after disruption of the position signals that they differentiate.

Why should there be separate populations of prospective and retrospective speed cells? Some neural computations in the hippocampal system might depend upon both pre- and post-positional velocity signals. For example, it has recently been shown from place cell recordings that the gain of the hippocampal path integration can be modified by prolonged exposure to a cue conflict between inertial and non-inertial self-motion cues (Jayakumar et al., 2019). Such cue conflicts may generate error signals that recalibrate the gain of the path integrator. One way to compute such error signals would be to calculate the difference between pre- versus post-positional velocity signals, and adjust the gain in proportion to the mismatch. Hence, deriving post-positional velocity signals via sigma-chi decoding might be essential for calibrating the gain of neural integrators in the hippocampal system and other brain systems.

Differentiation by cells versus circuits

The fact that velocity information can be extracted from between-cell spike intervals of position-tuned neurons is not a new idea. A similar idea has long been exploited in classical models of visual motion sensitivity, where neurons tuned for the direction of visual motion can be modeled by circuits that differentiate inputs from position-tuned neurons with receptive fields that are arranged sequentially along the preferred path of motion (Hubel & Weisel, 1962, Baccus et al., 2008). Such models bear a strong resemblance to our simulations of angular velocity cells (Fig. 4C) and speed cells (Fig. 7E), in which sigma-chi neurons derive velocity signals from position-tuned neurons. But in classical models of visual motion detection, directional tuning is typically derived from circuit-level mechanisms (such as asymmetric lateral inhibition), whereas in our simulations, velocity tuning was instead achieved by the chi operation (Eq. 9), which could performed at the cellular level (rather than the circuit level) in dendrites of biological neurons (see below). Indeed, calcium imaging experiments have revealed that in visual cortex, most neurons that receive input from orientation-tuned cells pool their inputs across the entire 360° range of edge orientations, and exhibit “hot spots” for specific orientations in different parts of their dendritic tree (Jia et al., 2010). This arrangement is similar to what would be expected if visual cortex neurons were computing co-firing rates by pooling their inputs across multiple orientation phases, in a manner similar to the way that sigma-chi neurons pool inputs across multiple phases of head angle (Fig. 4) or theta phase (Fig. 10) in our simulations.

Neural integration

Neural integration plays important roles in spatial coding. Spatially tuned neurons are thought to compute an animal’s position in two ways: by measuring the animal’s displacement from fixed landmarks in the surrounding environment, and by measuring the animal’s current position relative to its prior position (McNaughton et al., 1996). The latter process requires integrating the animal’s movement velocity over time to compute its position, a procedure known as path integration. Extracting position information via sigma-chi decoding (as in simulations of Figs. 8-10) is tantamount to path integration, since it is a process that derives position () from velocity (). Three types of models have been proposed to explain how hippocampal networks might perform path integration: attractor networks, reservoir computing models, and oscillatory

interference models. It is worthwhile to consider how dual coding of conjugate variables might impact mechanisms of path integration in each of these three classes of models.

Attractor networks

Attractor networks have been used to simulate path integration by HD cells (Zhang, 1996; Song & Wang, 2005), place cells (Samsonovich and McNaughton, 1997; Conklin & Eliasmith, 2005; Hedrick & Zhang, 2016), and grid cells (Fuhs & Touretzky, 2006; Guanella and Kiper, 2007; Burak & Fiete, 2009). Although these models differ in their implementation details, they all share two core features of attractor networks in common (see Knierim & Zhang, 2012). First, a population of neurons are reciprocally interconnected with one another via lateral inhibition, causing a localized “activity bump” to form as a stable attractor state of the network that endows individual neurons (such as HD, place, or grid cells) with peak-shaped positional tuning of their firing rates. Second, the symmetry of lateral connections among position-tuned neurons is controlled by neurons with velocity-tuned firing rates, which can push the activity bump through the network along trajectories that mirror the animal’s trajectory through space.

Analysis of spike trains from pairs of simultaneously recorded HD cells (Peyrache et al., 2015; Butler & Taube, 2017) and grid cells (Yoon et al., 2013) has revealed evidence for attractor dynamics in these networks, and experimentalists have reported connections in the entorhinal grid cell network that resemble connectivity patterns predicted by standard attractor network models (Couey et al., 2013; Fuchs et al., 2016). However, attractor networks implicitly assume that information about position and velocity is encoded only by firing rates, and not by spike correlations. Consequently, simulated attractor networks are typically composed from linear neurons (either non-spiking units or LIF units) that derive their outputs exclusively from , and not from , much like the sigma decoder in our simulations. But what if individual neurons behave more like sigma-chi decoders than sigma decoders? This is a real possibility, as evidenced by the fact that dendrites of hippocampal pyramidal cells and entorhinal stellate cells can perform nonlinear integration of their inputs, and may thus derive their outputs from correlations among their input spike trains rather than linear summation of firing rate inputs (Makara & Magee, 2013; Schmidt-Hieber et al., 2017). The connectivity patterns and neural firing properties predicted by attractor models are founded upon the assumption that individual neurons behave like sigma decoders, but if they instead behave like sigma-chi decoders, then connectivity and firing properties within the hippocampal system could look very different from what standard attractor models predict.

For example, consider a standard attractor network composed from linear units, in which velocity signals that push the activity bump are extracted from firing rates of velocity-tuned neurons. Such a model predicts feedforward connections from velocity-tuned neurons to position-tuned neurons. But under conjugate coding, velocity signals could be extracted from the co-firing rates of position-tuned neurons, so feedforward velocity inputs predicted by standard attractor networks might be minimal or existent. Instead, they could be replaced (or augmented) by functionally equivalent connections from one population of position tuned neurons to another (e.g., from entorhinal grid cells to hippocampal place cells, or vice versa). Since velocity signals encoded by co-firing rates tend to be delayed in time by the integration time constant (see Fig. 2), a time lag would be introduced into velocity signals extracted from co-firing rates of position-tuned neurons. However, position signals encoded by the firing rates

HD cells and grid cells are often seen to prospectively lead the animal’s true position (Muller & Kubie, 1989; Blair & Sharp, 1995; Mehta et al., 1997; Almeida et al., 2012), which could help to compensate for time lag if velocity signals were derived from the co-firing rates of these neurons for the purpose of path integration. Standard attractor networks also predict lateral inputs to position tuned neurons from neighboring position tuned neurons, but under conjugate coding, these connections too could be replaced or augmented by functionally equivalent alternatives, such as inputs to position tuned neurons (e.g., place cells or grid cells) from velocity-tuned neurons (e.g., theta cells) that encode position in their co-firing rates rather than their firing rates. In summary, the conjugate coding principle suggests that biological and artificial attractor networks may be subject to radically different constraints upon their connectivity, and therefore, attractor models composed purely from linear neurons may be quite limited in their ability generate accurate predictions about connectivity in biological path integration networks.

Dual coding of position and velocity might also help to explain why some populations of neurons that are predicted to exist by standard attractor models have never been observed. In two-dimensional open-field environments, place cells and grid cells exhibit robust positional tuning of their firing rates in two dimensions. Path integration in two dimensions requires a two-dimensional representation of movement velocity, but to our knowledge, no experiment has ever observed neurons with firing rates that are tuned for velocity in two dimensions. Speed cells may contribute to encoding the non-directional component of velocity in two dimensions, but an additional component for movement direction would also be required. The entorhinal cortex does contain neurons that are tuned for head direction (Giocomo et al., 2014), and many grid cells are selective not only for the animal’s position but also for the direction in which its head is facing (Sargolini et al., 2006; Wills et al., 2012). However, these entorhinal populations appear to be tuned for the head’s azimuthul position, rather than for azimuthal movement direction. Accurate two dimensional path integration requires an azimuthal velocity signal, rather than an azimuthal position signal (Roudies et al., 2015). If velocity is encoded in spike correlations as well as (or instead of) firing rates, then a firing rate code for azimuthal movement velocity would not need to exist, because neurons that encode a two-dimensional position signal in their firing rates (such as place or grid cells) would automatically also encode a two-dimensional velocity in their co-firing rates. Hence, the co-firing rates of grid cells could serve as the substrate for encoding velocity signals that support two-dimensional path integration, even in the absence of any neural population that encodes two-dimensional velocity signals in their firing rates. A similar idea has been proposed by Zutshi et al. (2017), who argued that theta sequences generated by grid cells may provide a substrate for two-dimensional velocity coding in entorhinal cortex. However, our simulations suggest that while oscillatory modulation (which gives rise to theta sequences) is essential for encoding position signals in spike correlations, it is not essential for encoding velocity signals in spike correlations, as demonstrated by the fact that velocity can be recovered via sigma-chi decoding from simulated HD cells (Fig. 5) and grid cells (Fig. 7) even when they generate Poisson spike trains with no oscillatory modulation at all.

Reservoir computing networks

Reservoir computing models of path integration are recurrent neural networks trained from example data (via gradient descent methods) to convert time-varying velocity signals into time-varying position signals (Abbott et al., 2016, DeNeve & Machens, 2016). It has recently been shown that neurons with periodic spatial tuning—similar to entorhinal grid cells—can

emerge spontaneously in a non-spiking recurrent network trained to perform spatial path integration (Banino et al., 2018). Like attractor models, most reservoir computing models of path integration use recurrent networks composed from linear neurons, so the inputs and outputs to these networks encode velocity and position signals solely as vectors of neural firing rates (not spike train correlations). However, unlike standard attractor models, recurrent connections within a reservoir computing network are sculpted by learning. It is thus possible that when a recurrent network of spiking neurons is trained to perform path integration, error-driven learning could cause the formation of neural microcircuits that extract information about position or velocity from correlations among spike trains, and not just from firing rates. This would be more likely to occur if the network were constructed not from linear neurons, but from spiking neurons that perform nonlinear integration of their inputs, similar to the sigma-chi neurons in our simulations. Training a recurrent network of sigma-chi neurons to perform path integration would require differentiating Eq. 9 to derive a cost function that supports convergent learning. If this could be achieved, then it would be intriguing to investigate what kinds of coding mechanisms naturally emerge when a recurrent network of sigma-chi neurons is trained to perform path integration. Phenomena such as oscillatory rhythms that support dial coding might emerge spontaneously from the training of such a network, in a manner similar to the way that grid cells emerge spontaneously when a network of linear neurons is trained to perform path integration (Banino et al., 2018). The emergent firing properties and connectivity patterns in a trained network of recurrently connected sigma-chi neurons might bear closer resemblance to real hippocampal and entorhinal networks than those that emerge from networks of linear neurons.

Oscillatory interference models

Oscillatory interference models are explicitly designed to encode position information using correlated neural activity, rather than firing rates. These models propose that the brain contains velocity-controlled oscillators (VCOs) that shift phase against one another at a rate that depends upon the animal’s movement velocity (Burgess et al., 2007; Geisler et al., 2007). Consequently, phase offsets between oscillators depend upon the animal’s positon in space. If VCOs are implemented by spike trains of neurons that burst rhythmically at the theta frequency, then the VCOs map the animal’s position into a representational space where each dimension measures time intervals (normalized by the theta cycle period) between pairs of spikes that are fired by different neurons (that is, cells synchronized to different VCOs). This is in marked contrast with attractor and reservoir computing models, which map the animal’s position into a representational space where each dimension measures time intervals between pairs of spikes that are fired by the same neuron (that is, firing rates).

Early oscillatory interference models demonstrated how individual grid cells (Burgess et al., 2007; Giocomo et al., 2007a,b) or place cells (Blair et al., 2008) could derive their position-tuned firing rates by detecting of location-specific synchrony among inputs from theta VCOs. This mechanism can account not only for the spatial firing properties of place and grid cells, but also for temporal firing properties such as theta rhythmicity, phase precession (O’Keefe & Recce, 1993; Hafting et al., 2008), and modulation of theta oscillations by running speed (Geisler et al., 2007; Welday et al., 2011; Jeewajee et al., 2014). Some of these early oscillatory interference models (Burgess et al., 2007; Giocomo et al., 2007a,b) simulated nonlinear multiplicative interactions among VCO inputs to grid cells, while others were based upon linear summation of VCO inputs (Welday et al., 2011). However, these models were focused upon

mimicking the firing properties of individual grid or place cells, rather than modeling path integration or other network-level computations. Later models proposed novel “hybrid” architectures for performing path integration through a combination of both attractor dynamics and oscillatory interference (Bush & Burgess, 2014; Hasselmo & Shay, 2014). Despite incorporating oscillatory interference mechanisms rooted in spike correlations, these models were simulated by networks of linear neurons that derived their outputs by computing weighted sums of their inputs, and then converted these weighted sums into spike trains using LIF or Izhikevic spike dynamics. The connectivity patterns predicted by these models might change— and perhaps become more biologically accurate—if they were reformulated using model neurons that perform nonlinear integration of their inputs to take full advantage of dual coding by firing rates as well as spike correlations.

Summary and Conclusions

Neuroscience researchers are sometimes prone to “ratism”—a bias to regard the firing rates of spiking neurons as the primary coordinate basis of the neural code. Under the influence of this bias, it is reflexively assumed that if individual neurons are tuned for some particular variable (such as head angle, spatial position, or running speed), then a population of such neurons exists mainly to encode distributed representations of that same variable using vectors of neural firing rates. While it is certainly true that information can be encoded by (and decoded from) population vectors of neural firing rates, it is does not follow from this that the space of firing rate vectors is the only representational space into which information is mapped by neural spike trains. It is necessary to recognize and appreciate that the same population of neurons can encode different information when viewed through the “lenses” of different decoders.

Here, we have shown that there is a conjugate relationship between firing rate codes and spike correlation codes, which mirrors the uncertainty principle from physics. A firing rate code for position () can co-exist with a co-firing rate code for velocity (), or a co-firing rate code for position () can co-exist with a firing rate code for velocity (). More generally, a firing rate code for any time-varying stimulus can co-exist with a co-firing rate code for the time derivative of that stimulus, and vice versa. Hence, the conjugate coding principle described here may be useful for understanding neural coding not only in the hippocampal system, but in other brain systems as well. For example, the visual system encodes information about the position and as well as the velocity of objects in the visual field. Motor and proprioceptive systems processes information about the position and velocity of moving limbs. And neural circuits for reinforcement learning encode information about expected value and prediction error, which bear a relationship to one another that is similar to the relationship between position and velocity (prediction error is the time derivative of expected value, and expected value is the time integral prediction error). In all of these systems, the conjugate coding principle may be at work to embed orthogonal representations of stimuli and their time derivatives within the firing rates and co-firing rates of neural spike trains. Further theoretical and empirical analysis may help to elucidate how biological neurons extract information (at the level of single cells) from both firing rates and co-firing rates to efficiently perform useful computations.

Acknowledgements

We thank Kechen Zhang for valuable discussions about how to mathematically formulate our ideas about the uncertainty principle and dual coding of conjugate variables. Manu Madhav and Ravi Jayakumar provided position tracking data from the circular track, and Rose DeGuzman assisted in collecting the head direction data from the open field. We also thank Joseph Monaco for helpful feedback and discussion. This work was supported by NIH Initiative for Maximizing Student Development (IMSD) grant #GM055052 to Ryan Grgrich.

METHODS

All simulations were carried out using MATLAB (source code available upon request).

Position Tracking

Simulated HD, grid, and theta cells were generated from position tracking data. Head direction data from the open field was obtained while a rat foraged freely for food pellets in a circular arena (diameter = 80 cm). Rats wore a pair of red and green light-emitting diodes (LEDs) spaced 11.25 cm apart from one another, and an overhead video camera sampled LED positions at R=30 Hz with a resolution of P=4.7 pixels/cm. Each LED’s position was smoothed using a boxcar window 15 samples (0.5 s) wide, and the rat’s head direction at each time step was estimated as , where and denote the difference between the and coordinates of the red and green LEDs, respectively a the position sample. Position data from the circular track was obtained while rats ran laps on a 1.5 m diameter circular track enclosed within a planetarium-style dome, where an array of three visual landmarks was projected onto the interior surface to create an augmented reality environment (Jayakumar et al., 2019). The rat was attached to a boom arm that rotated around a joint in the center of the track, and the rat’s position on the track was sampled at 100 Hz from an optical encoder of the boom angle in the center joint.

Generation of simulated spike trains

To simulate spike trains of HD cells or grid cells, we computed the probability of spiking at each time step using Eq. 3. The computed probability was then used as a threshold for a random number generator that output a real value between 0 and 1; a spike was placed in a given time step if the random value fell below the calculated probability threshold, yielding a binary spike response function (Eq. 1). For simulations of theta cell spike trains, the spike response function was generated in two steps. First we first created a “seed spike train” for each theta cell, containing a single spike at every time step where the theta cell’s phase (computed using Eq. 16) passed through perfect phase synchrony with the reference oscillator. The probability of spiking for theta cell was then computed by convolving the seed spike train with a Gaussian kernel (Eq. 18). A problem with this methods was that when seed spikes were spaced closer together than the width of the Gaussian kernel, it was possible for the convolution procedure to yield inappropriately large spike probabilities. To prevent this, the convolution was performed separately on even and odd numbered spikes within the seed spike train, so that no

two spikes would be closer together than the width of the Gaussian kernel. The two convolution results were then merged by taking the maximum probability from either of the two results at each time step. The probabilities in the merged time series were then used as the probability threshold on the random number generator for outputting the theta cell’s spike response function.

Conversion of speed cells to grid cells

REFERENCES

Abbott, L. F., DePasquale, B., & Memmesheimer, R.-M. (2016). Building functional networks of spiking model neurons. Nature Neuroscience, 19(3), 350. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4241

Baccus, S. A., Ölveczky, B. P., Manu, M., & Meister, M. (2008). A retinal circuit that computes object motion. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(27), 6807–6817. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4206-07.2008

Banino, A., Barry, C., Uria, B., Blundell, C., Lillicrap, T., Mirowski, P., et al. (2018). Vector-based navigation using grid-like representations in artificial agents. Nature, 521, 436. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0102-6

Blair, H. T., & Sharp, P. E. (1995). Anticipatory head direction signals in anterior thalamus: evidence for a thalamocortical circuit that integrates angular head motion to compute head direction. Journal of Neuroscience, 15(9), 6260–6270. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.15-09-06260.1995

Blair, H. T., & Sharp, P. E. (1996). Visual and vestibular influences on head-direction cells in the anterior thalamus of the rat. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110(4), 643–660. http://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.110.4.643

Blair, H. T., Gupta, K., & Zhang, K. (2008). Conversion of a phaseto a ratecoded position signal by a threestage model of theta cells, grid cells, and place cells. Hippocampus, 18(12), 1239–1255. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20509

Blair, H. T., Wu, A., & Cong, J. (2014). Oscillatory neurocomputing with ring attractors: a network architecture for mapping locations in space onto patterns of neural synchrony. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0526

Brandon, M. P., Bogaard, A. R., Libby, C. P., Connerney, M. A., Gupta, K., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2011). Reduction of Theta Rhythm Dissociates Grid Cell Spatial Periodicity from Directional Tuning. Science, 332(6029), 595–599. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201652

Burak, Y., & Fiete, I. R. (2009). Accurate Path Integration in Continuous Attractor Network Models of Grid Cells. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(2), e1000291. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000291

Burgess, N., Barry, C., & O'Keefe, J. (2007). An oscillatory interference model of grid cell firing. Hippocampus, 17(9), 801–812. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20327

Bush, D., & Burgess, N. (2014). A Hybrid Oscillatory Interference/Continuous Attractor Network Model of Grid Cell Firing. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(14), 5065–5079. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4017-13.2014

Butler, W. N., & Taube, J. S. (2017). Oscillatory synchrony between head direction cells recorded bilaterally in the anterodorsal thalamic nuclei. Journal of Neurophysiology. http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00881.2016

Climer, J. R., Newman, E. L., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2013). Phase coding by grid cells in unconstrained environments: twodimensional phase precession. European Journal of Neuroscience, 38(4), 2526–2541. http://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12256

Couey, J. J., Witoelar, A., Zhang, S.-J., Zheng, K., Ye, J., Dunn, B., et al. (2013). Recurrent inhibitory circuitry as a mechanism for grid formation. Nature Neuroscience, 16(3), 318–324. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3310

De Almeida, L., Idiart, M., Villavicencio, A., & Lisman, J. (2012). Alternating predictive and shortterm memory modes of entorhinal grid cells. Hippocampus, 22(8), 1647–1651. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22030

Denève, S., & Machens, C. K. (2016). Efficient codes and balanced networks. Nature Neuroscience, 19(3), 375–382. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4243

Eliasmith, C. (2005). A Unified Approach to Building and Controlling Spiking Attractor Networks. Neural Computation, 17(6), 1276–1314. http://doi.org/10.1162/0899766053630332

Fuchs, E. C., Neitz, A., Pinna, R., Melzer, S., Caputi, A., & Monyer, H. (2016). Local and Distant Input Controlling Excitation in Layer II of the Medial Entorhinal Cortex. Neuron, 89(1), 194– 208. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.11.029

Fuhs, M. C., & Touretzky, D. S. (2006). A Spin Glass Model of Path Integration in Rat Medial Entorhinal Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(16), 4266–4276. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4353-05.2006

Geisler, C., Robbe, D., Zugaro, M., Sirota, A., & Buzsáki, G. (2007). Hippocampal place cell assemblies are speed-controlled oscillators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 8149–8154. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610121104

Giocomo, L. M., Stensola, T., Bonnevie, T., Van Cauter, T., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2014). Topography of Head Direction Cells in Medial Entorhinal Cortex. Current Biology, 24(3), 252–262. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.002

Giocomo, L. M., Zilli, E. A., Fransén, E., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2007). Temporal Frequency of Subthreshold Oscillations Scales with Entorhinal Grid Cell Field Spacing. Science, 315(5819), 1719–1722. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139207

Góis, Z. H. T. D., & Tort, A. B. L. (2018). Characterizing Speed Cells in the Rat Hippocampus. Cell Reports, 25(7), 1872–1884.e4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.054

GUANELLA, A., KIPER, D., & VERSCHURE, P. (2011). A MODEL OF GRID CELLS BASED ON A TWISTED TORUS TOPOLOGY. International Journal of Neural Systems, 17(04), 231–240. http://doi.org/10.1142/S0129065707001093

Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Bonnevie, T., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2008). Hippocampusindependent phase precession in entorhinal grid cells. Nature, 453(7199), 1248–1252. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06957

Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2005). Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature, 436(7052), 801–806. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature03721

Hasselmo, M. E., & Shay, C. F. (2014). Grid cell firing patterns may arise from feedback interaction between intrinsic rebound spiking and transverse traveling waves with multiple heading angles. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00201

Hasselmo, M. E., Giocomo, L. M., & Zilli, E. A. (2007). Grid cell firing may arise from interference of theta frequency membrane potential oscillations in single neurons. Hippocampus, 17(12), 1252–1271. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20374

Hedrick, K. R., & Zhang, K. (2016). Megamap: flexible representation of a large space embedded with nonspatial information by a hippocampal attractor network. Journal of Neurophysiology. http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00856.2015

Hinman, J. R., Brandon, M. P., Climer, J. R., Chapman, G. W., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2016). Multiple Running Speed Signals in Medial Entorhinal Cortex. Neuron, 91(3), 666–679. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.027

Hinman, J. R., Dannenberg, H., Alexander, A. S., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2018). Neural mechanisms of navigation involving interactions of cortical and subcortical structures. Journal of Neurophysiology. http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00498.2017

HUBEL, D. H., & WIESEL, T. N. (1962). Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. The Journal of Physiology, 160(1), 106–154. http://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837

Jacob, P.-Y., Capitano, F., Poucet, B., Save, E., & Sargolini, F. (2019). Path integration maintains spatial periodicity of grid cell firing in a 1D circular track. Nature Communications, 10(1), 840. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08795-w

Jayakumar, R. P., Madhav, M. S., Savelli, F., Blair, H. T., Cowan, N. J., & Knierim, J. J. (2019). Recalibration of path integration in hippocampal place cells. Nature, 566(7745), 533. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0939-3

Jeewajee, A., Barry, C., Douchamps, V., Manson, D., Lever, C., & Burgess, N. (2014). Theta phase precession of grid and place cell firing in open environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0532

Jensen, O., & Lisman, J. E. (2000). Position Reconstruction From an Ensemble of Hippocampal Place Cells: Contribution of Theta Phase Coding. Journal of Neurophysiology. http://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2000.83.5.2602

Jia, H., Rochefort, N. L., Chen, X., & Konnerth, A. (2010). Dendritic organization of sensory input to cortical neurons <i>in vivo</i>. Nature, 464(7293), 1307. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature08947

Knierim, J. J., & Zhang, K. (2012). Attractor Dynamics of Spatially Correlated Neural Activity in the Limbic System. Dx.Doi.org. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150351

Koenig, J., Linder, A. N., Leutgeb, J. K., & Leutgeb, S. (2011). The Spatial Periodicity of Grid Cells is Not Sustained During Reduced Theta Oscillations. Science, 332(6029), 592–595. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202333

Kropff, E., Carmichael, J. E., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2015). Speed cells in the medial entorhinal cortex. Nature, 523(7561), 419–424. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14622

Lever, C., Burton, S., Jeewajee, A., O'Keefe, J., & Burgess, N. (2009). Boundary Vector Cells in the Subiculum of the Hippocampal Formation. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(31), 9771–9777. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1319-09.2009

Makara, J. K., & Magee, J. C. (2013). Variable Dendritic Integration in Hippocampal CA3 Pyramidal Neurons. Neuron, 80(6), 1438–1450. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.033

McNaughton, B. L., Barnes, C. A., Gerrard, J. L., Gothard, K., Jung, M. W., Knierim, J. J., et al. (1996). Deciphering the hippocampal polyglot: the hippocampus as a path integration system. Journal of Experimental Biology, 199(1), 173–185.

Mehta, M. R., Barnes, C. A., & McNaughton, B. L. (1997). Experience-dependent, asymmetric expansion of hippocampal place fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(16), 8918–8921. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8918

Mel, B. W. (2007). Why have dendrites? A computational perspective. In G. Stuart (Ed.), Dendrites (2nd ed., pp. 421–440). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566564.003.0016.

Muller, R. U., & Kubie, J. L. (1989). The firing of hippocampal place cells predicts the future position of freely moving rats. Journal of Neuroscience, 9(12), 4101–4110. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-12-04101.1989

O'Keefe, J., & Dostrovsky, J. (1971). The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Research, 34(1), 171–175. http://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(71)90358-1

O'Keefe, J., & Recce, M. L. (1993). Phase relationship between hippocampal place units and the EEG theta rhythm. Hippocampus, 3(3), 317–330. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.450030307

Peyrache, A., Lacroix, M. M., Petersen, P. C., & Buzsáki, G. (2015). Internally organized mechanisms of the head direction sense. Nature Neuroscience, 18(4), 569. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3968

Raudies, F., Brandon, M. P., Chapman, G. W., & Hasselmo, M. E. (2015). Head direction is coded more strongly than movement direction in a population of entorhinal neurons. Brain Research, 1621, 355–367. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.10.053

Samsonovich, A., & McNaughton, B. L. (1997). Path Integration and Cognitive Mapping in a Continuous Attractor Neural Network Model. Journal of Neuroscience, 17(15), 5900–5920. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-15-05900.1997

Sargolini, F., Fyhn, M., Hafting, T., McNaughton, B. L., Witter, M. P., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2006). Conjunctive Representation of Position, Direction, and Velocity in Entorhinal Cortex. Science, 312(5774), 758–762. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1125572

Savelli, F., Yoganarasimha, D., & Knierim, J. J. (2008). Influence of boundary removal on the spatial representations of the medial entorhinal cortex. Hippocampus, 18(12), 1270–1282. http://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20511

Schmidt-Hieber, C., Toleikyte, G., Aitchison, L., Roth, A., Clark, B. A., Branco, T., & Häusser, M. (2017). Active dendritic integration as a mechanism for robust and precise grid cell firing. Nature Neuroscience, 20(8), 1114–1121. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4582

Sharp, P. (1996). Multiple Spatial/Behavioral Correlates for Cells in the Rat Postsubiculum: Multiple Regression Analysis and Comparison to Other Hippocampal Areas. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2), 238–259. http://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/6.2.238","keywords":["hippocampus“,”fire

Skaggs, W. E., McNaughton, B. L., Wilson, M. A., & Barnes, C. A. (1996). Theta phase precession in hippocampal neuronal populations and the compression of temporal sequences. Hippocampus, 6(2), 149–172. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-1063(1996)6:2<149::AID-HIPO6>3.0.CO;2-K

Solstad, T., Boccara, C. N., Kropff, E., Moser, M.-B., & Moser, E. I. (2008). Representation of Geometric Borders in the Entorhinal Cortex. Science, 322(5909), 1865–1868. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166466

Song, P., & Wang, X.-J. (2005). Angular Path Integration by Moving “Hill of Activity”: A Spiking Neuron Model without Recurrent Excitation of the Head-Direction System. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(4), 1002–1014. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4172-04.2005

Stackman, R. W., & Taube, J. S. (1998). Firing Properties of Rat Lateral Mammillary Single Units: Head Direction, Head Pitch, and Angular Head Velocity. Journal of Neuroscience, 18(21), 9020–9037. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-21-09020.1998

Taube, J. S., Muller, R. U., & Ranck, J. B. (1990). Head-direction cells recorded from the postsubiculum in freely moving rats. I. Description and quantitative analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 10(2), 420–435. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-02-00420.1990

Tingley, D., & Buzsáki, G. (2018). Transformation of a Spatial Map across the HippocampalLateral Septal Circuit. Neuron, 98(6), 1229–1242.e5. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.04.028

Welday, A. C., Shlifer, I. G., Bloom, M. L., Zhang, K., & Blair, H. T. (2011). Cosine Directional Tuning of Theta Cell Burst Frequencies: Evidence for Spatial Coding by Oscillatory Interference. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(45), 16157–16176. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0712-11.2011

Wills, T., Barry, C., & Cacucci, F. (2012). The abrupt development of adult-like grid cell firing in the medial entorhinal cortex. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 6. http://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2012.00021

Wilson, M. A., & McNaughton, B. L. (1993). Dynamics of the hippocampal ensemble code for space. Science, 261(5124), 1055–1058.

Yoder, R. M., & Taube, J. S. (2014). The vestibular contribution to the head direction signal and navigation. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8, 32. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2014.00032

Yoon, K., Buice, M. A., Barry, C., Hayman, R., Burgess, N., & Fiete, I. R. (2013). Specific evidence of low-dimensional continuous attractor dynamics in grid cells. Nature Neuroscience, 16(8), 1077–1084. http://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3450

Zhang, K. (1996). Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head-direction cell ensemble: a theory. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(6), 2112–2126. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-06-02112.1996

Zhang, K. (1996). Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head-direction cell ensemble: a theory. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(6), 2112–2126. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.16-06-02112.1996

Zutshi I, Leutgeb JK, Leutgeb S. (2017). Theta sequences of grid cell populations can provide a movement-direction signal. Curr Opin Behav Sci, 17, 147-154. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.08.012. PMID: 29333481; PMCID: PMC5761317.