No abstract

Summary Decision-making studies across different domains suggest that decisions can arise from multiple, parallel systems in the brain: a flexible system utilizing action-outcome expectancies, and a more rigid system based on situation-action associations. The hippocampus, ventral striatum and dorsal striatum make unique contributions to each system, but how information processing in each of these structures supports these systems is unknown. Recent work has shown covert representations of future paths in hippocampus, and of future rewards in ventral striatum. We developed new analyses in order to use a comparative methodology and apply the same analyses to all three structures. Covert representations of future paths and reward were both absent from the dorsal striatum. In contrast, dorsal striatum slowly developed situation representations that selectively represented action-rich parts of the task. This triple dissociation suggests that the different roles these structures play are due to differences in information processing mechanisms.

The striatum plays an important role in "habitual" learning and memory and has been hypothesized to implement a reinforcement-learning algorithm to select actions to perform given the current sensory input. Many experimental approaches to striatal activity have made use of temporally structured tasks, which imply that the striatal representation is temporal. To test this assumption, we recorded neurons in the dorsal striatum of rats running a sequential navigation task: the multiple T maze. Rats navigated a sequence of four T maze turns to receive food rewards delivered in two locations. The responses of neurons that fired phasically were examined. Task-responsive phasic neurons were active as rats ran on the maze (maze-responsive) or during reward receipt (reward-responsive). Neither maze- nor reward-responsive neurons encoded simple motor commands: maze-responses were not well correlated with the shape of the rat's path and most reward-responsive neurons did not fire at similar rates at both food-delivery sites. Maze-responsive neurons were active at one or more locations on the maze, but these responses did not cluster at spatial landmarks such as turns. Across sessions the activity of maze-responsive neurons was highly correlated when rats ran the same maze. Maze-responses encoded the location of the rat on the maze and imply a spatial representation in the striatum in a task with prominent spatial demands. Maze-responsive and reward-responsive neurons were two separate populations, suggesting a divergence in striatal information processing of navigation and reward.

The dorsal striatum plays a critical role in procedural learning and memory. Current models of basal ganglia assume that striatal neurons and circuitry are critical for the execution of overlearned, habitual sequences of action. However, less is known about how the striatum encodes task information that guides the performance of actions in procedural tasks. To explore the striatal encoding of task information, we compared the behavioral correlates of striatal neurons tested in two tasks: a Multiple-T-maze task in which reward delivery was entirely predictable based on spatial cues (the Multiple-T task), and a task in which rats ran on a rectangular track, but food delivery depended on the distance traveled on the track and was not dependent solely on spatial location (the Take-5 task). Striatal cells recorded on these tasks were divisible into three cell types: phasic-firing neurons (PFNs), tonically firing neurons (TFNs), and high-firing neurons (HFNs) and similar proportions of each cell type were found in each task. However, the behavioral correlates of each cell type were differentially sensitive to the type of task rats were performing. PFNs were responsive to specific task-parameters on each task. TFNs showed reliable burst-andpause responses following food delivery and other events that were consistent with tonically active-neurons (TANs) on the Take-5 (non-spatial) task but not on the Multiple-T (spatial) task. HFNs showed spatial oscillations on the Multiple-T (spatial) task but not the Take-5 (non-spatial) task. Reconstruction of the rats' position on the maze was highly accurate when using striatal ensembles recorded on the Multiple-T (spatial) task, but not when using ensembles recorded on the Take-5 (non-spatial) task. In contrast, reconstruction of time following food delivery was successful in both tasks. The results indicated a strong task dependency of the quality of the spatial, but not the reward-related, striatal representations on these tasks. These results suggest that striatal spatial representations depend on the degree to which spatial task-parameters can be unambiguously associated with goals.