Navigation through space involves learning and representing relationships between past, current and future locations. In mammals, this might rely on the hippocampal theta phase code, where in each cycle of the theta oscillation, spatial representations provided by neuronal sequences start behind the animal's true location and then sweep forward. However, the exact relationship between theta phase, represented position and true location remains unclear and even paradoxical. Here, we formalize previous notions of 'spatial' or 'temporal' theta sweeps that have appeared in the literature. We analyze single-cell and population variables in unit recordings from rat CA1 place cells and compare them to model simulations based on each of these schemes. We show that neither spatial nor temporal sweeps quantitatively accounts for how all relevant variables change with running speed. To reconcile these schemes with our observations, we introduce 'behavior-dependent' sweeps, in which theta sweep length and place field properties, such as size and phase precession, vary across the environment depending on the running speed characteristic of each location. These behavior-dependent spatial maps provide a structured heterogeneity that is essential for understanding the hippocampal code.

Representing past, present and future locations is key for spatial navigation. Indeed, within each cycle of the theta oscillation, the population of hippocampal place cells appears to represent trajectories starting behind the current position of the animal and sweeping ahead of it. In particular, we reported recently that the position represented by CA1 place cells at a given theta phase corresponds to the location where animals were or will be located at a fixed time interval into the past or future assuming the animal ran at its typical, not the current, speed through that part of the environment. This coding scheme leads to longer theta trajectories, larger place fields and shallower phase precession in areas where animals typically run faster. Here we present a mechanistic computational model that accounts for these experimental observations. The model consists of a continuous attractor network with short-term synaptic facilitation and depression that internally generates theta sequences that advance at a fixed pace. Spatial locations are then mapped onto the active units via modified Hebbian plasticity. As a result, neighboring units become associated with spatial locations further apart where animals run faster, reproducing our earlier experimental results. The model also accounts for the higher density of place fields generally observed where animals slow down, such as around rewards. Furthermore, our modeling results reveal that an artifact of the decoding analysis might be partly responsible for the observation that theta trajectories start behind the animal's current position. Overall, our results shed light on how the hippocampal code might arise from the interplay between behavior, sensory input and predefined network dynamics.

No abstract

Representing past, present and future locations is key for spatial navigation. Indeed, within each cycle of the theta oscillation, the population of hippocampal place cells appears to represent trajectories starting behind the current position of the animal and sweeping ahead of it. In particular, we reported recently that the position represented by CA1 place cells at a given theta phase corresponds to the location where animals were or will be located at a fixed time interval into the past or future assuming the animal ran at its typical, not the current, speed through that part of the environment. This coding scheme leads to longer theta trajectories, larger place fields and shallower phase precession in areas where animals typically run faster. Here we present a mechanistic computational model that accounts for these experimental observations. The model consists of a continuous attractor network with short-term synaptic facilitation and depression that internally generates theta sequences that advance at a fixed pace. Spatial locations are then mapped onto the active units via modified Hebbian plasticity. As a result, neighboring units become associated with spatial locations further apart where animals run faster, reproducing our earlier experimental results. The model also accounts for the higher density of place fields generally observed where animals slow down, such as around rewards. Furthermore, our modeling results reveal that an artifact of the decoding analysis might be partly responsible for the observation that theta trajectories start behind the animal’s current position. Overall, our results shed light on how the hippocampal code might arise from the interplay between behavior, sensory input and predefined network dynamics.

An animal's ability to navigate space is crucial to its survival. It is also cognitively demanding, and relatively easy to probe. For these reasons, spatial navigation has received a great deal of attention from neuroscientists, leading to the identification of key brain areas and the ongoing discovery of a ``zoo'' of cell types responding to different aspects of spatial tasks. Despite this progress, our understanding of how the pieces fit together to drive behavior is generally lacking. We argue that this is partly caused by insufficient communication between researchers focusing on spatial behavior and those attempting to study its neural basis. This has led the latter to under-appreciate the relevance and complexity of spatial behavior, and to focus too narrowly on characterizing neural representations of space—disconnected from the computations these representations are meant to enable. We therefore propose a taxonomy of navigation processes in mammals that can serve as a common framework for structuring and facilitating interdisciplinary research in the field. Using the taxonomy as a guide, we review behavioral and neural studies of spatial navigation. In doing so, we both validate the taxonomy and showcase its usefulness in identifying potential issues with common experimental approaches, designing experiments that adequately target particular behaviors, correctly interpreting neural activity, and pointing to new avenues of research.