Abstract
Many behaviours that are critical for animals to survive and thrive rely on spatial navigation. Spatial navigation, in turn, relies on internal representations about one’s spatial location, one’s orientation or heading direction and the distance to objects in the environment. Although the importance of vision in guiding such internal representations has long been recognized, emerging evidence suggests that spatial signals can also modulate neural responses in the central visual pathway. Here, we review the bidirectional influences between visual and navigational signals in the rodent brain. Specifically, we discuss reciprocal interactions between vision and the internal representations of spatial position, explore the effects of vision on representations of an animal’s heading direction and vice versa, and examine how the visual and navigational systems work together to assess the relative distances of objects and other features. Throughout, we consider how technological advances and novel ethological paradigms that probe rodent visuo-spatial behaviours allow us to advance our understanding of how brain areas of the central visual pathway and the spatial systems interact and enable complex behaviours.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Parker, P. R. L. et al. Distance estimation from monocular cues in an ethological visuomotor task. eLife 11, e74708 (2022). Through the development of a visual distance estimation task for freely moving mice, this study reveals that mice can effectively exploit monocular cues, in particular motion parallax cues from headbobs, to estimate visual depth.
Boone, H. C. et al. Natural binocular depth discrimination behavior in mice explained by visual cortical activity. Curr. Biol. 31, 2191–2198.e3 (2021).
Shamash, P. et al. Mice learn multi-step routes by memorizing subgoal locations. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 1270–1279 (2021).
Hoy, J. L., Yavorska, I., Wehr, M. & Niell, C. M. Vision drives accurate approach behavior during prey capture in laboratory mice. Curr. Biol. 26, 3046–3052 (2016).
Johnson, K. P. et al. Cell-type-specific binocular vision guides predation in mice. Neuron 109, 1527–1539.e4 (2021). This study identifies the RGC types responsible for ipsilateral projections (ipsi-RGCs) and demonstrates that selective ablation of these specific cells (<2% of RGCs) in adult mice significantly impairs their hunting success.
Michaiel, A. M., Abe, E. T. & Niell, C. M. Dynamics of gaze control during prey capture in freely moving mice. eLife 9, e57458 (2020). In this work, recordings of eye and head position during mouse prey capture reveal that eye movements in mice, even during dynamic and interactive behaviours, serve the dual role of maintaining gaze stability during head movements and facilitating gaze relocation during directed head turns with remarkable accuracy.
Yilmaz, M. & Meister, M. Rapid innate defensive responses of mice to looming visual stimuli. Curr. Biol. 23, 2011–2015 (2013).
De Franceschi, G., Vivattanasarn, T., Saleem, A. B. & Solomon, S. G. Vision guides selection of freeze or flight defense strategies in mice. Curr. Biol. 26, 2150–2154 (2016).
La Chioma, A., Bonhoeffer, T. & Hübener, M. Area-specific mapping of binocular disparity across mouse visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 29, 2954–2960.e5 (2019).
Morris, R. G. M., Garrud, P., Rawlins, J. N. P. & O’Keefe, J. Place navigation impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions. Nature 297, 681–683 (1982).
Muller, R. U. & Kubie, J. L. The effects of changes in the environment on the spatial firing of hippocampal complex-spike cells. J. Neurosci. 7, 1951–1968 (1987).
Taube, J. S., Muller, R. U. & Ranck, J. B. Head-direction cells recorded from the postsubiculum in freely moving rats. II. Effects of environmental manipulations. J. Neurosci. 10, 436–447 (1990).
Taube, J. S., Muller, R. U. & Ranck, J. B. Head-direction cells recorded from the postsubiculum in freely moving rats. I. Description and quantitative analysis. J. Neurosci. 10, 420–435 (1990).
Moser, E. I., Kropff, E. & Moser, M.-B. Place cells, grid cells, and the brain’s spatial representation system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 69–89 (2008). As the present Review briefly touches upon descriptions of the various spatial cell types, we refer readers to this review for an extensive discussion of the various cell types in the spatial system.
O’Keefe, J. & Dostrovsky, J. The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Res. 34, 171–175 (1971).
Hafting, T., Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Moser, M.-B. & Moser, E. I. Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature 436, 801–806 (2005).
Wiener, S. I. and Taube, J. S. Head Direction Cells and the Neural Mechanisms of Spatial Orientation (MIT Press, 2005).
Tolman, E. C. Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol. Rev. 55, 189–208 (1948).
O’Keefe, J. and Nadel, L. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (Oxford Univ. Press, 1978).
Yoder, R. M., Clark, B. J. & Taube, J. S. Origins of landmark encoding in the brain. Trends Neurosci. 34, 561–571 (2011). This review summarizes evidence on how visual information could be processed along several cortical processing streams and is transformed into spatial signals within the limbic system, highlighting the role of the dorsal presubiculum.
Saleem, A. B. Two stream hypothesis of visual processing for navigation in mouse. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 64, 70–78 (2020).
Saleem, A. B., Diamanti, E. M., Fournier, J., Harris, K. D. & Carandini, M. Coherent encoding of subjective spatial position in visual cortex and hippocampus. Nature 562, 124–127 (2018). This study reveals spatial modulations of mouse V1 neurons by showing that V1 neurons respond differently to the same visual landmark in different spatial positions along a VR corridor, and that the modulations align with hippocampal representations.
Fiser, A. et al. Experience-dependent spatial expectations in mouse visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1658–1664 (2016).
Diamanti, E. M. et al. Spatial modulation of visual responses arises in cortex with active navigation. eLife 10, e63705 (2021). This study suggests that spatial modulation in the central visual pathway emerges in V1, persists through HVAs, and is enhanced by active exploration.
Vélez-Fort, M. et al. A circuit for integration of head- and visual-motion signals in layer 6 of mouse primary visual cortex. Neuron 98, 179–191.e6 (2018). This study shows the existence of signals related to the direction and angular velocity of horizontal rotation of the head in neurons in layer 6 of mouse V1, suggesting that visual-motion processing in V1 L6 is multisensory and contextually dependent on the motion status of the animal’s head.
Miura, S. K. & Scanziani, M. Distinguishing externally from saccade-induced motion in visual cortex. Nature 610, 135–142 (2022). This study demonstrates that during saccadic eye movements, by integrating a non-visual input received from the pulvinar with the visual input from the retina, V1 shows differential responses to external and self-generated motion.
Meyer, A. F., Poort, J., O’Keefe, J., Sahani, M. & Linden, J. F. A head-mounted camera system integrates detailed behavioral monitoring with multichannel electrophysiology in freely moving mice. Neuron 100, 46–60.e7 (2018). This work is an open-source toolkit for a lightweight, head-mounted head and eye-tracking system for mice, which provides a crucial methodological foundation for studying vision in mice during unrestricted movement.
Song, E. Y., Kim, Y. B., Kim, Y. H. & Jung, M. W. Role of active movement in place-specific firing of hippocampal neurons. Hippocampus 15, 8–17 (2005).
Chen, G., King, J. A., Burgess, N. & O’Keefe, J. How vision and movement combine in the hippocampal place code. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 378–383 (2013).
Terrazas, A. et al. Self-motion and the hippocampal spatial metric. J. Neurosci. 25, 8085–8096 (2005).
Chen, G., Lu, Y., King, J. A., Cacucci, F. & Burgess, N. Differential influences of environment and self-motion on place and grid cell firing. Nat. Commun. 10, 630 (2019).
Wallace, D. J. et al. Rats maintain an overhead binocular field at the expense of constant fusion. Nature 498, 65–69 (2013).
Harvey, C. D., Collman, F., Dombeck, D. A. & Tank, D. W. Intracellular dynamics of hippocampal place cells during virtual navigation. Nature 461, 941–946 (2009).
Grieves, R. M. & Jeffery, K. J. The representation of space in the brain. Behav. Process. 135, 113–131 (2017). This review provides an overview of the literature on place cells, HD cells and grid cells, highlighting their role in the formation of a cognitive map, and discusses additional spatially modulated neurons that may contribute to this map.
Park, E., Dvorak, D. & Fenton, A. A. Ensemble place codes in hippocampus: CA1, CA3, and dentate gyrus place cells have multiple place fields in large environments. PLoS ONE 6, e22349 (2011).
Muller, R. U., Bostock, E., Taube, J. S. & Kubie, J. L. On the directional firing properties of hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 14, 7235–7251 (1994).
Etienne, A. S. & Jeffery, K. J. Path integration in mammals. Hippocampus 14, 180–192 (2004).
Jeffery, K. J., Wilson, J. J., Casali, G. & Hayman, R. M. Neural encoding of large-scale three-dimensional space — properties and constraints. Front. Psychol. 6, 927 (2015).
O’Keefe, J. & Speakman, A. Single unit activity in the rat hippocampus during a spatial memory task. Exp. Brain Res. 68, 1–27 (1987).
Lenck-Santini, P. P., Save, E. & Poucet, B. Evidence for a relationship between place-cell spatial firing and spatial memory performance. Hippocampus 11, 377–390 (2001).
Fournier, J. et al. Mouse visual cortex is modulated by distance traveled and by theta oscillations. Curr. Biol. 30, 3811–3817.e6 (2020).
Keinath, A. T., Julian, J. B., Epstein, R. A. & Muzzio, I. A. Environmental geometry aligns the hippocampal map during spatial reorientation. Curr. Biol. 27, 309–317 (2017).
Lenck-Santini, P.-P., Muller, R. U., Save, E. & Poucet, B. Relationships between place cell firing fields and navigational decisions by rats. J. Neurosci. 22, 9035–9047 (2002).
Wang, C., Chen, X. & Knierim, J. J. Egocentric and allocentric representations of space in the rodent brain. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 60, 12–20 (2020).
Jeffery, K. J. Spatial cognition: entorhinal cortex and the hippocampal place-cell map. Curr. Biol. 25, R1181–R1183 (2015).
Radvansky, B. A., Oh, J. Y., Climer, J. R. & Dombeck, D. A. Behavior determines the hippocampal spatial mapping of a multisensory environment. Cell Rep. 36, 109444 (2021).
Save, E., Nerad, L. & Poucet, B. Contribution of multiple sensory information to place field stability in hippocampal place cells. Hippocampus 10, 64–76 (2000).
Jeffery, K. J. Integration of the sensory inputs to place cells: what, where, why, and how? Hippocampus 17, 775–785 (2007).
Morris, R. G. M. Spatial localization does not require the presence of local cues. Learn. Motiv. 12, 239–260 (1981).
Fenton, A. A., Arolfo, M. P., Nerad, L. & Bures, J. Place navigation in the Morris water maze under minimum and redundant extra-maze cue conditions. Behav. Neural Biol. 62, 178–189 (1994).
Liu, Z., Francis Turner, L. & Bures, J. Impairment of place navigation of rats in the Morris water maze by intermittent light is inversely related to the duration of the flash. Neurosci. Lett. 180, 59–62 (1994).
Arolfo, M. P., Nerad, L., Schenk, F. & Bures, J. Absence of snapshot memory of the target view interferes with place navigation learning by rats in the water maze. Behav. Neurosci. 108, 308–316 (1994).
Prusky, G. T., West, P. W. R. & Douglas, R. M. Reduced visual acuity impairs place but not cued learning in the Morris water task. Behavioural Brain Res. 116, 135–140 (2000).
Chapillon, P. Very brief exposure to visual distal cues is sufficient for young mice to navigate in the Morris water maze. Behav. Process. 46, 15–24 (1999).
Jeffery, K. J. & O’Keefe, J. M. Learned interaction of visual and idiothetic cues in the control of place field orientation. Exp. Brain Res. 127, 151–161 (1999).
Knierim, J. J., Kudrimoti, H. S. & McNaughton, B. L. Place cells, head direction cells, and the learning of landmark stability. J. Neurosci. 15, 1648–1659 (1995).
Scaplen, K. M., Gulati, A. A., Heimer-McGinn, V. L. & Burwell, R. D. Objects and landmarks: hippocampal place cells respond differently to manipulations of visual cues depending on size, perspective, and experience. Hippocampus 24, 1287–1299 (2014).
Fenton, A. A., Csizmadia, G. & Muller, R. U. Conjoint control of hippocampal place cell firing by two visual stimuli. I. The effects of moving the stimuli on firing field positions. J. Gen. Physiol. 116, 191–209 (2000).
Spiers, H. J., Hayman, R. M. A., Jovalekic, A., Marozzi, E. & Jeffery, K. J. Place field repetition and purely local remapping in a multicompartment environment. Cereb. Cortex 25, 10–25 (2015).
Harland, B. et al. Lesions of the head direction cell system increase hippocampal place field repetition. Curr. Biol. 27, 2706–2712.e2 (2017).
Chen, G., Manson, D., Cacucci, F. & Wills, T. J. Absence of visual input results in the disruption of grid cell firing in the mouse. Curr. Biol. 26, 2335–2342 (2016).
Quirk, G. J., Muller, R. U. & Kubie, J. L. The firing of hippocampal place cells in the dark depends on the rat’s recent experience. J. Neurosci. 10, 2008–2017 (1990).
Cheng, K. & Newcombe, N. S. Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 1–23 (2005).
Knight, R., Hayman, R., Lin Ginzberg, L. & Jeffery, K. Geometric cues influence head direction cells only weakly in nondisoriented rats. J. Neurosci. 31, 15681–15692 (2011).
Clark, B. J., Harris, M. J. & Taube, J. S. Control of anterodorsal thalamic head direction cells by environmental boundaries: comparison with conflicting distal landmarks. Hippocampus 22, 172–187 (2012).
Dombeck, D. A., Khabbaz, A. N., Collman, F., Adelman, T. L. & Tank, D. W. Imaging large-scale neural activity with cellular resolution in awake, mobile mice. Neuron 56, 43–57 (2007).
Dombeck, D. A., Harvey, C. D., Tian, L., Looger, L. L. & Tank, D. W. Functional imaging of hippocampal place cells at cellular resolution during virtual navigation. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 1433–1440 (2010).
Thurley, K. & Ayaz, A. Virtual reality systems for rodents. Curr. Zool. 63, 109–119 (2017).
Minderer, M., Harvey, C. D., Donato, F. & Moser, E. I. Neuroscience: virtual reality explored. Nature 533, 324–325 (2016).
Cushman, J. D. et al. Multisensory control of multimodal behavior: do the legs know what the tongue is doing? PLoS ONE 8, e80465 (2013).
Ravassard, P. et al. Multisensory control of hippocampal spatiotemporal selectivity. Science 340, 1342–1346 (2013).
Campbell, M. G. et al. Principles governing the integration of landmark and self-motion cues in entorhinal cortical codes for navigation. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1096–1106 (2018). This study reports that the integration of landmarks and self-motion cues by entorhinal grid cells, border cells and speed cells is context dependent, where the degree and direction of VR gain manipulations determine the context.
Kinkhabwala, A. A., Gu, Y., Aronov, D. & Tank, D. W. Visual cue-related activity of cells in the medial entorhinal cortex during navigation in virtual reality. eLife 9, e43140 (2020). This study discovers ‘cue cells’ in the MEC, which have firing fields close to visual landmarks in the environment, and thus are suggested to have an important role in correcting errors accumulated during path integration.
Casali, G., Shipley, S., Dowell, C., Hayman, R. & Barry, C. Entorhinal neurons exhibit cue locking in rodent VR. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 12, 512 (2018).
Purandare, C. S. et al. Moving bar of light evokes vectorial spatial selectivity in the immobile rat hippocampus. Nature 602, 461–467 (2022). Using a visual display around a body-fixed rat on a spherical treadmill, this study finds that a significant portion of dorsal CA1 neurons in the hippocampus show stable tuning for the angular position of a moving bar of light, independent of behaviour and rewards, thus enabling the generation of a spatial representation based on a purely visual input.
Ji, D. & Wilson, M. A. Coordinated memory replay in the visual cortex and hippocampus during sleep. Nat. Neurosci. 10, 100–107 (2007). This study finds that during slow-wave sleep, rat V1 has periods of high activity, during which multi-cell firing sequences replay awake experiences coincident with memory replay events in the hippocampus.
Haggerty, D. C. & Ji, D. Activities of visual cortical and hippocampal neurons co-fluctuate in freely moving rats during spatial behavior. eLife 4, e08902 (2015).
Morimoto, M. M., Uchishiba, E. & Saleem, A. B. Organization of feedback projections to mouse primary visual cortex. iScience 24, 102450 (2021).
Wang, Q., Gao, E. & Burkhalter, A. Gateways of ventral and dorsal streams in mouse visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 31, 1905–1918 (2011).
Taube, J. S., Goodridge, J. P., Golob, E. J., Dudchenko, P. A. & Stackman, R. W. Processing the head direction cell signal: a review and commentary. Brain Res. Bull. 40, 477–484 (1996).
Taube, J. S. The head direction signal: origins and sensory-motor integration. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 181–207 (2007).
Dudchenko, P. A., Wood, E. R. & Smith, A. A new perspective on the head direction cell system and spatial behavior. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 105, 24–33 (2019).
Mizumori, S. J. & Williams, J. D. Directionally selective mnemonic properties of neurons in the lateral dorsal nucleus of the thalamus of rats. J. Neurosci. 13, 4015–4028 (1993).
Taube, J. S. Head direction cells recorded in the anterior thalamic nuclei of freely moving rats. J. Neurosci. 15, 70–86 (1995).
Blair, H. T. & Sharp, P. E. Anticipatory head direction signals in anterior thalamus: evidence for a thalamocortical circuit that integrates angular head motion to compute head direction. J. Neurosci. 15, 6260–6270 (1995).
Tsanov, M. et al. Theta-modulated head direction cells in the rat anterior thalamus. J. Neurosci. 31, 9489–9502 (2011).
Giocomo, L. M. et al. Topography of head direction cells in medial entorhinal cortex. Curr. Biol. 24, 252–262 (2014).
Cho, J. & Sharp, P. E. Head direction, place, and movement correlates for cells in the rat retrosplenial cortex. Behav. Neurosci. 115, 3–25 (2001).
Chen, L. L., Lin, L. H., Green, E. J., Barnes, C. A. & McNaughton, B. L. Head-direction cells in the rat posterior cortex. I. Anatomical distribution and behavioral modulation. Exp. Brain Res. 101, 8–23 (1994).
Lozano, Y. R. et al. Retrosplenial and postsubicular head direction cells compared during visual landmark discrimination. Brain Neurosci. Adv. 1, 2398212817721859 (2017).
Sargolini, F. et al. Conjunctive representation of position, direction, and velocity in entorhinal cortex. Science 312, 758–762 (2006).
Redish, A. D., David Redish, A., Elga, A. N. & Touretzky, D. S. A coupled attractor model of the rodent head direction system. Netw.: Comput. Neural Syst. 7, 671–685 (1996).
Zhang, K. Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head-direction cell ensemble: a theory. J. Neurosci. 16, 2112–2126 (1996).
Angelaki, D. E. et al. A gravity-based three-dimensional compass in the mouse brain. Nat. Commun. 11, 1855 (2020).
Knierim, J. J., Kudrimoti, H. S. & McNaughton, B. L. Interactions between idiothetic cues and external landmarks in the control of place cells and head direction cells. J. Neurophysiol. 80, 425–446 (1998).
Muller, R. U., Ranck, J. B. Jr & Taube, J. S. Head direction cells: properties and functional significance. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 6, 196–206 (1996).
Zugaro, M. B., Tabuchi, E. & Wiener, S. I. Influence of conflicting visual, inertial and substratal cues on head direction cell activity. Exp. Brain Res. 133, 198–208 (2000).
Taube, J. S. & Burton, H. L. Head direction cell activity monitored in a novel environment and during a cue conflict situation. J. Neurophysiol. 74, 1953–1971 (1995).
Jacob, P.-Y. et al. An independent, landmark-dominated head-direction signal in dysgranular retrosplenial cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 173–175 (2017).
Zhang, N., Grieves, R. M. & Jeffery, K. J. Environment symmetry drives a multidirectional code in rat retrosplenial cortex. J. Neurosci. 42, 9227–9241 (2022). Using recordings of directionally tuned cells in the RSP, this study discovers that rotational symmetry in an environment reveals multi-directional HD cells, which could have onefold, twofold or fourfold rotational symmetry reflecting the symmetry in the environment.
Sattler, N. J. & Wehr, M. A head-mounted multi-camera system for electrophysiology and behavior in freely-moving mice. Front. Neurosci. 14, 592417 (2020).
Meyer, A. F., O’Keefe, J. & Poort, J. Two distinct types of eye-head coupling in freely moving mice. Curr. Biol. 30, 2116–2130.e6 (2020).
Holmgren, C. D. et al. Visual pursuit behavior in mice maintains the pursued prey on the retinal region with least optic flow. eLife 10, e70838 (2021).
Cullen, K. E. & Chacron, M. J. Neural substrates of perception in the vestibular thalamus during natural self-motion: a review. Curr. Res. Neurobiol. 4, 100073 (2023).
Busse, L. et al. Sensation during active behaviors. J. Neurosci. 37, 10826–10834 (2017).
Parker, P. R. L., Brown, M. A., Smear, M. C. & Niell, C. M. Movement-related signals in sensory areas: roles in natural behavior. Trends Neurosci. 43, 581–595 (2020).
Flossmann, T. & Rochefort, N. L. Spatial navigation signals in rodent visual cortex. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 67, 163–173 (2021).
Guitchounts, G., Lotter, W., Dapello, J. & Cox, D. Stable 3D head direction signals in the primary visual cortex. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.04.283762v2 (2020).
Guitchounts, G., Masís, J., Wolff, S. B. E. & Cox, D. Encoding of 3D head orienting movements in the primary visual cortex. Neuron 108, 512–525.e4 (2020).
Parker, P. R. L., Abe, E. T. T., Leonard, E. S. P., Martins, D. M. & Niell, C. M. Joint coding of visual input and eye/head position in V1 of freely moving mice. Neuron 110, 3897–3906 (2022).
Bouvier, G., Senzai, Y. & Scanziani, M. Head movements control the activity of primary visual cortex in a luminance-dependent manner. Neuron 108, 500–511.e5 (2020).
Orlowska-Feuer, P. et al. Look-up and look-down neurons in the mouse visual thalamus during freely moving exploration. Curr. Biol. 32, 3987–3999.e4 (2022).
Mimica, B. et al. Behavioral decomposition reveals rich encoding structure employed across neocortex. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.479515v2 (2022).
Dale, A. & Cullen, K. E. The ventral posterior lateral thalamus preferentially encodes externally applied versus active movement: implications for self-motion perception. Cereb. Cortex 29, 305–318 (2019).
Rancz, E. A. et al. Widespread vestibular activation of the rodent cortex. J. Neurosci. 35, 5926–5934 (2015).
Parker, P. R. L. et al. A dynamic sequence of visual processing initiated by gaze shifts. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.23.504847v1 (2022).
Andersen, R. A., Snyder, L. H., Li, C. S. & Stricanne, B. Coordinate transformations in the representation of spatial information. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 3, 171–176 (1993).
Brecht, M., Preilowski, B. & Merzenich, M. M. Functional architecture of the mystacial vibrissae. Behav. Brain Res. 84, 81–97 (1997).
Knierim, J. J. & Hamilton, D. A. Framing spatial cognition: neural representations of proximal and distal frames of reference and their roles in navigation. Physiol. Rev. 91, 1245–1279 (2011).
Shapiro, M. L., Tanila, H. & Eichenbaum, H. Cues that hippocampal place cells encode: dynamic and hierarchical representation of local and distal stimuli. Hippocampus 7, 624–642 (1997).
Yoganarasimha, D., Yu, X. & Knierim, J. J. Head direction cell representations maintain internal coherence during conflicting proximal and distal cue rotations: comparison with hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 26, 622–631 (2006).
Lee, I., Yoganarasimha, D., Rao, G. & Knierim, J. J. Comparison of population coherence of place cells in hippocampal subfields CA1 and CA3. Nature 430, 456–459 (2004).
Knierim, J. J. Dynamic interactions between local surface cues, distal landmarks, and intrinsic circuitry in hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 22, 6254–6264 (2002).
Renaudineau, S., Poucet, B. & Save, E. Flexible use of proximal objects and distal cues by hippocampal place cells. Hippocampus 17, 381–395 (2007).
Deshmukh, S. S. & Knierim, J. J. Representation of non-spatial and spatial information in the lateral entorhinal cortex. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 5, 69 (2011).
Knierim, J. J., Neunuebel, J. P. & Deshmukh, S. S. Functional correlates of the lateral and medial entorhinal cortex: objects, path integration and local–global reference frames. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369, 20130369 (2014).
Deshmukh, S. S. & Knierim, J. J. Influence of local objects on hippocampal representations: landmark vectors and memory. Hippocampus 23, 253–267 (2013).
Høydal, Ø. A., Skytøen, E. R., Andersson, S. O., Moser, M.-B. & Moser, E. I. Object-vector coding in the medial entorhinal cortex. Nature 568, 400–404 (2019).
Lever, C., Burton, S., Jeewajee, A., O’Keefe, J. & Burgess, N. Boundary vector cells in the subiculum of the hippocampal formation. J. Neurosci. 29, 9771–9777 (2009).
Zugaro, M. B., Berthoz, A. & Wiener, S. I. Background, but not foreground, spatial cues are taken as references for head direction responses by rat anterodorsal thalamus neurons. J. Neurosci. 21, RC154 (2001).
Cressant, A., Muller, R. U. & Poucet, B. Failure of centrally placed objects to control the firing fields of hippocampal place cells. J. Neurosci. 17, 2531–2542 (1997).
Bourboulou, R. et al. Dynamic control of hippocampal spatial coding resolution by local visual cues. eLife 8, e44487 (2019).
Andersson, S. O., Moser, E. I. & Moser, M.-B. Visual stimulus features that elicit activity in object-vector cells. Commun. Biol. 4, 1219 (2021). This study identifies the basic visual features that elicit responses in object vector cells of the MEC, demonstrating the ability of object vector cells to encode vectorial distances to various visual stimuli, including two-dimensional objects, transparent stimuli and even simple visual contrast.
Wang, C. et al. Egocentric coding of external items in the lateral entorhinal cortex. Science 362, 945–949 (2018). This study finds neurons in the LEC that were active when animals were at a specific egocentric distance from objects placed within the environment.
Alexander, A. S. et al. Egocentric boundary vector tuning of the retrosplenial cortex. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz2322 (2020). This study reports the presence of a large percentage of egocentric boundary vector cells in the RSP, which have increased firing rate when the animal is a specific distance and angle from a boundary.
Gibson, E. J. & Walk, R. D. The ‘Visual Cliff’. Sci. Am. 202, 64–71 (1960).
Scoville, W. B. & Milner, B. Loss of recent memory after bilateral hippocampal lesions. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 20, 11–21 (1957).
Milner, B., Squire, L. R. & Kandel, E. R. Cognitive neuroscience and the study of memory. Neuron 20, 445–468 (1998).
Ranganath, C. Time, memory, and the legacy of Howard Eichenbaum. Hippocampus 29, 146–161 (2019).
Eichenbaum, H. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Memory: An Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).
Constantinescu, A. O., O’Reilly, J. X. & Behrens, T. E. J. Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code. Science 352, 1464–1468 (2016).
Aronov, D., Nevers, R. & Tank, D. W. Mapping of a non-spatial dimension by the hippocampal–entorhinal circuit. Nature 543, 719–722 (2017). Through training rats to manipulate a lever, and thereby control the frequency of an emitted sound, the researchers observe selective firing of neurons in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortices that encode specific sound frequencies, suggesting that the hippocampal–entorhinal system is capable of representing non-spatial variables in addition to spatial information encoded by place cells and grid cells.
Clark, R. E. & Squire, L. R. Similarity in form and function of the hippocampus in rodents, monkeys, and humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10365–10370 (2013).
Ekstrom, A. D. et al. Cellular networks underlying human spatial navigation. Nature 425, 184–188 (2003).
Miller, J. F. et al. Neural activity in human hippocampal formation reveals the spatial context of retrieved memories. Science 342, 1111–1114 (2013).
Doeller, C. F., Barry, C. & Burgess, N. Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network. Nature 463, 657–661 (2010).
Epstein, R. A., Patai, E. Z., Julian, J. B. & Spiers, H. J. The cognitive map in humans: spatial navigation and beyond. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 1504–1513 (2017).
Land, M. F. Eye movements of vertebrates and their relation to eye form and function. J. Comp. Physiol. A Neuroethol. Sens. Neural Behav. Physiol. 201, 195–214 (2015).
Luongo, F. J. et al. Mice and primates use distinct strategies for visual segmentation. eLife 12, e74394 (2023).
Epstein, R. A. & Baker, C. I. Scene perception in the human brain. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 5, 373–397 (2019). This review summarizes functional neuroimaging studies exploring human perception and understanding of complex scenes, in particular findings on three cortical regions that exhibit selectivity for scenes and encode a range of visual and functional properties related to scene perception.
Arcaro, M. J. & Livingstone, M. S. Retinotopic organization of scene areas in macaque inferior temporal cortex. J. Neurosci. 37, 7373–7389 (2017).
Kornblith, S., Cheng, X., Ohayon, S. & Tsao, D. Y. A network for scene processing in the macaque temporal lobe. Neuron 79, 766–781 (2013).
Nasr, S. et al. Scene-selective cortical regions in human and nonhuman primates. J. Neurosci. 31, 13771–13785 (2011).
Liska, J. P. et al. Running modulates primate and rodent visual cortex differently. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.13.495712v3 (2022).
Talluri, B. C. et al. Activity in primate visual cortex is minimally driven by spontaneous movements. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.08.507006v1 (2022).
Avitan, L. & Stringer, C. Not so spontaneous: multi-dimensional representations of behaviors and context in sensory areas. Neuron 110, 3064–3075 (2022).
Stringer, C. et al. Spontaneous behaviors drive multidimensional, brainwide activity. Science 364, 255 (2019).
Musall, S., Kaufman, M. T., Juavinett, A. L., Gluf, S. & Churchland, A. K. Single-trial neural dynamics are dominated by richly varied movements. Nat. Neurosci. 22, 1677–1686 (2019).
Heeger, D. J. Theory of cortical function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1773–1782 (2017).
Nienborg, H. & Cumming, B. G. Decision-related activity in sensory neurons reflects more than a neuron’s causal effect. Nature 459, 89–92 (2009).
Straka, H., Simmers, J. & Chagnaud, B. P. A new perspective on predictive motor signaling. Curr. Biol. 28, R232–R243 (2018).
Keller, G. B., Bonhoeffer, T. & Hübener, M. Sensorimotor mismatch signals in primary visual cortex of the behaving mouse. Neuron 74, 809–815 (2012).
Thiele, A., Henning, P., Kubischik, M. & Hoffmann, K.-P. Neural mechanisms of saccadic suppression. Science 295, 2460–2462 (2002).
Salinas, E. & Sejnowski, T. J. Gain modulation in the central nervous system: where behavior, neurophysiology, and computation meet. Neuroscientist 7, 430–440 (2001).
Salinas, E. & Abbott, L. F. A model of multiplicative neural responses in parietal cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 11956–11961 (1996).
Rigotti, M. et al. The importance of mixed selectivity in complex cognitive tasks. Nature 497, 585–590 (2013).
Byrne, P., Becker, S. & Burgess, N. Remembering the past and imagining the future: a neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychol. Rev. 114, 340–375 (2007).
Bicanski, A. & Burgess, N. A neural-level model of spatial memory and imagery. eLife 7, e33752 (2018).
Bicanski, A. & Burgess, N. Neuronal vector coding in spatial cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 453–470 (2020).
Li, T., Arleo, A. & Sheynikhovich, D. Modeling place cells and grid cells in multi-compartment environments: entorhinal–hippocampal loop as a multisensory integration circuit. Neural Netw. 121, 37–51 (2020).
Arleo, A. & Gerstner, W. Spatial cognition and neuro-mimetic navigation: a model of hippocampal place cell activity. Biol. Cybern. 83, 287–299 (2000).
Pereira, T. D. et al. SLEAP: a deep learning system for multi-animal pose tracking. Nat. Methods 19, 486–495 (2022).
Mathis, A. et al. DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1281–1289 (2018). This work presents deep learning-based software for tracking body parts from videos, which alongside with other tracking software allows detailed behavioural tracking, for instance to disentangle the influence of other behaviours on spatial modulations.
Hoy, J. L., Bishop, H. I. & Niell, C. M. Defined cell types in superior colliculus make distinct contributions to prey capture behavior in the mouse. Curr. Biol. 29, 4130–4138.e5 (2019).
Pakan, J. M. P., Currie, S. P., Fischer, L. & Rochefort, N. L. The impact of visual cues, reward, and motor feedback on the representation of behaviorally relevant spatial locations in primary visual cortex. Cell Rep. 24, 2521–2528 (2018).
Kui, G. G., Krysiak, M., Banda, K. & Rodman, H. R. Context dependence of head bobs in gerbils and potential neural contributions. Behav. Brain Res. 418, 113622 (2022).
Del Grosso, N. A. & Sirota, A. Ratcave: a 3D graphics python package for cognitive psychology experiments. Behav. Res. Methods 51, 2085–2093 (2019).
Lein, E. S. et al. Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature 445, 168–176 (2007).
Bakker, R., Tiesinga, P. & Kötter, R. The Scalable Brain Atlas: instant web-based access to public brain atlases and related content. Neuroinformatics 13, 353–366 (2015).
Hölscher, C., Schnee, A., Dahmen, H., Setia, L. & Mallot, H. A. Rats are able to navigate in virtual environments. J. Exp. Biol. 208, 561–569 (2005).
Aghajan, Z. M. et al. Impaired spatial selectivity and intact phase precession in two-dimensional virtual reality. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 121–128 (2015).
Aronov, D. & Tank, D. W. Engagement of neural circuits underlying 2D spatial navigation in a rodent virtual reality system. Neuron 84, 442–456 (2014).
Chen, G., King, J. A., Lu, Y., Cacucci, F. & Burgess, N. Spatial cell firing during virtual navigation of open arenas by head-restrained mice. eLife 7, e34789 (2018).
Madhav, M. S. et al. The Dome: a virtual reality apparatus for freely locomoting rodents. J. Neurosci. Methods 368, 109336 (2022).
Stowers, J. R. et al. Virtual reality for freely moving animals. Nat. Methods 14, 995–1002 (2017).
Lopes, G. et al. Creating and controlling visual environments using BonVision. eLife 10, e65541 (2021).
Štih, V., Petrucco, L., Kist, A. M. & Portugues, R. Stytra: an open-source, integrated system for stimulation, tracking and closed-loop behavioral experiments. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006699 (2019).
Pereira, T. D. et al. Fast animal pose estimation using deep neural networks. Nat. Methods 16, 117–125 (2019).
Nityananda, V. & Read, J. C. A. Stereopsis in animals: evolution, function and mechanisms. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 2502–2512 (2017).
Julesz, B. Binocular depth perception without familiarity cues. Science 145, 356–362 (1964).
Kim, H. R., Angelaki, D. E. & DeAngelis, G. C. The neural basis of depth perception from motion parallax. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150256 (2016).
Read, J. C. A. Binocular vision and stereopsis across the animal kingdom. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 7, 389–415 (2021).
Koch, S. M. et al. Pathway-specific genetic attenuation of glutamate release alters select features of competition-based visual circuit refinement. Neuron 71, 235–242 (2011).
Seabrook, T. A., Burbridge, T. J., Crair, M. C. & Huberman, A. D. Architecture, function, and assembly of the mouse visual system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 40, 499–538 (2017).
Dräger, U. C. & Olsen, J. F. Origins of crossed and uncrossed retinal projections in pigmented and albino mice. J. Comp. Neurol. 191, 383–412 (1980).
Reese, B. E. ‘Hidden lamination’ in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus: the functional organization of this thalamic region in the rat. Brain Res. 472, 119–137 (1988).
Coleman, J. E., Law, K. & Bear, M. F. Anatomical origins of ocular dominance in mouse primary visual cortex. Neuroscience 161, 561–571 (2009).
Bauer, J. et al. Limited functional convergence of eye-specific inputs in the retinogeniculate pathway of the mouse. Neuron 109, 2457–2468.e12 (2021).
Dräger, U. C. Receptive fields of single cells and topography in mouse visual cortex. J. Comp. Neurol. 160, 269–290 (1975).
Ramachandra, V., Pawlak, V., Wallace, D. J. & Kerr, J. N. D. Impact of visual callosal pathway is dependent upon ipsilateral thalamus. Nat. Commun. 11, 1889 (2020).
Zhao, X., Liu, M. & Cang, J. Sublinear binocular integration preserves orientation selectivity in mouse visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 4, 2088 (2013).
Scholl, B., Burge, J. & Priebe, N. J. Binocular integration and disparity selectivity in mouse primary visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 109, 3013–3024 (2013).
Oommen, B. S. & Stahl, J. S. Eye orientation during static tilts and its relationship to spontaneous head pitch in the laboratory mouse. Brain Res. 1193, 57–66 (2008).
Stabio, M. E. et al. A novel map of the mouse eye for orienting retinal topography in anatomical space. J. Comp. Neurol. 526, 1749–1759 (2018).
Meister, M. & Cox, D. Rats maintain a binocular field centered on the horizon. F1000Res. 2, 176 (2013).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank K. J. Jeffery and M. Huebener for feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) SFB 1233 Robust Vision: Inference Principles and Neural Mechanisms TP 10/13 (project number: 276693517), DFG SFB 870 TP 19 (project number: 118803580), DFG BU 1808/6-2 and 1808/5-2, and a ONE Munich Strategy Forum grant (LMU Munich, TU Munich and the Bavarian Ministry for Science and Art) to L.B. This work was also supported by The Sir Henry Dale Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust and Royal Society (200501) and the Human Frontier in Science Program (RGY0076/2018) to A.B.S.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Neuroscience thanks Philip Parker, Nathalie Rochefort and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Glossary
- Active sampling
-
A cognitive or behavioural strategy, in which an organism seeks out and acquires specific sensory information from its environment in an active process, as opposed to passively receiving sensory input.
- Allocentric position
-
In a world-centric reference frame, defined with respect to external cues or landmarks and independent of the observer’s own position or orientation.
- Corollary discharge
-
Often referred to as a neural signal that is obtained by passing a motor efference copy through a forward model of motor control. As the corollary discharge is then in sensory coordinates, it can be directly compared with sensory signals.
- Distal cues
-
Cues that are large, stationary and so far away from the animal that they have fixed directional positions from anywhere within the environment. Distal cues are typically visual landmarks. Laboratory studies commonly refer to visual cues as distal if they are placed on the walls of the experimental room in which the arena is situated.
- Efference copies
-
Copies of the motor commands sent from the motor areas of the brain to other regions, including sensory areas. This information can be used to predict (or generate an expectation for) the outcomes of the motor command.
- Egocentric
-
In an observer-centric reference frame, defined relative to the observer’s features (for example, body position and orientation or eye position).
- Gain fields
-
In the context of spatial representations, neural representations in which the activity of the neurons encodes both the location of a stimulus in the sensory space and the current state of the animal’s body. The firing rate is multiplicatively modulated by the position of the sensor (such as the eye or arm) or the animal and/or its orientation in space. This spatial tuning facilitates the integration of sensory information with body-centred information.
- Gaze
-
The line of sight (per eye), determined by both the position of the eye in orbit (eye position) and the position of the head in space.
- Grid cells
-
A type of neurons that display spatial selectivity, characterized by multiple firing fields arranged in a hexagonal grid pattern across the environment. These cells increase the firing rate when the animal moves through any of their fields and are thought to have a role in coding distances as the animal navigates its surroundings.
- Head direction
-
The direction towards which the head of an animal is pointing.
- Head-direction cells
-
(HD cells). Cells that exhibit their highest level of activity when the animal’s head is oriented towards a specific direction, remaining inactive in other directions. Different HD cells can be active in different directions, and when considered as a population, these cells collectively represent all possible directions.
- Heading direction
-
The direction towards which the whole body of an animal is moving.
- Landmarks
-
Distinctive features or objects in the environment that are stably related to specific locations or bearings on the map, and thus can be used as reference points for navigation.
- Motion parallax
-
The perceptual phenomenon in which objects located at different distances from an observer appear to move at different speeds or directions when the observer moves. This serves as a monocular depth cue providing information about the relative distances between objects in the visual scene.
- Object/boundary vector cells
-
A type of neurons that become active when an animal is located at a specific vectorial distance relative to an object or boundary in the environment.
- Path integration
-
A navigational strategy used by animals to maintain an estimate of their current position in space. It consists of the accumulation of self-motion-related interoceptive information over time from an egocentric reference point.
- Place cells
-
A type of neurons that exhibit heightened activity when an animal occupies a specific location in its environment (or a few positions in large environments), irrespective of the animal’s head direction.
- Proximal cues
-
Cues that are small and often located within the animal’s immediate environment or very close to it, so that they can change their relative directional position as the animal moves around.
- Reafferent visual input
-
The sensory information that is received by the visual system as a result of the interaction between an organism’s own movements and the external environment; that is, sensory signals generated by the movement of the eyes, head or body.
- Saccadic suppression
-
A phenomenon in visual perception in which visual information is suppressed or reduced during saccadic movements. This is thought to prevent motion blur from reaching awareness and to support our uninterrupted visual experience.
- Stereopsis
-
The perception of visual depth that arises from binocular disparity; that is, the slight difference in the visual input received by each eye due to their slightly different positions on the head.
- Virtual reality
-
(VR). An artificial, simulated environment that updates in a manner that is contingent on one’s action. Human VR systems often use computer peripherals to capture a subject’s actions. Rodent VR systems instead typically use optical sensors or rotary encoders to capture a subject’s actions on a treadmill.
- Visual depth
-
The distance or three-dimensional spatial relationships between objects (or other environmental features) estimated based on visual features in the scene.
- VR gain
-
This is the relationship between the physical distance travelled by a subject on a treadmill (or other sensor) and the virtual distance travelled in a given virtual reality (VR) environment. Increasing gain refers to making larger movements in VR (and decreasing gain to smaller movements in VR) for the same physical distance travelled.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Saleem, A.B., Busse, L. Interactions between rodent visual and spatial systems during navigation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 487–501 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-023-00716-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-023-00716-7