Flexible One-Dimensional Attractors Efficiently Align Grid Cell Maps
Concepts de base
Flexible one-dimensional attractor networks can efficiently align grid cell maps into a torus-like population activity, without requiring a pre-defined two-dimensional architecture.
Résumé
The study explores the possibility that grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex can be aligned by simpler, one-dimensional attractor networks, rather than the commonly assumed two-dimensional attractor architecture.
The key findings are:
-
Grid maps aligned by either a one-dimensional ring attractor or a two-dimensional torus attractor exhibit similar properties in terms of gridness, spacing, and alignment of axes across the population.
-
Topological data analysis reveals that the population activity in both one-dimensional and two-dimensional attractor conditions is embedded in a torus, despite the differences in the underlying network architecture.
-
The one-dimensional attractor can organize the grid cell population activity into multiple geometric configurations by stretching in physical space, allowing for flexibility in the alignment of the hexagonal grid maps.
-
The results demonstrate that the dimensionality of the network architecture and the dimensionality of the represented space can be decoupled, challenging the common assumption that they should match. This provides a proof of principle that attractor networks can negotiate the geometry of the representation manifold with the feedforward inputs, rather than imposing it.
Traduire la source
Vers une autre langue
Générer une carte mentale
à partir du contenu source
Voir la source
biorxiv.org
Modeled grid cells aligned by a flexible attractor
Stats
"Grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex and other brain areas provide a representation of the spatial environment navigated by an animal, through maps of hexagonal periodicity that have been compared to a system of Cartesian axes 1-3."
"Grid maps in the 2D condition had the highest gridness, followed closely by the 1D and 1DL conditions, while the No condition exhibited markedly lower values."
"Spacing and spread were lowest for the 2D condition, followed by a small margin by 1D and 1DL, with the No condition again presenting the largest differences with the rest."
Citations
"Our results show that there are multiple ways in which continuous attractors can align grid cells, including simple architectures such as ring or stripe attractors. In topological terms the resulting population activity is equivalent (homeomorphic), despite differences in the topology of the architecture or in projections obtained through dimensionality-reduction techniques."
"Crucially, we show for the first time with mathematical rigor that the architecture and representational space of an attractor network can be two different topological objects."
Questions plus approfondies
How might the flexibility of one-dimensional attractors enable grid cells to represent spatial information in different dimensionalities, such as one-dimensional tracks or three-dimensional environments?
The flexibility of one-dimensional attractors allows grid cells to adapt to different dimensionalities by aligning their axes of symmetry in a way that suits the specific spatial requirements. For instance, in one-dimensional tasks like representing a linear track or a one-dimensional variable such as time or frequency, grid cells can organize themselves along a ring attractor to encode the relevant information. This flexibility enables grid cells to exhibit single response fields or multiple fields with irregular spacing, depending on the task at hand. Similarly, in three-dimensional environments, grid cells can adjust their organization to represent the complex spatial information by aligning along a toroidal attractor. By negotiating the geometry of the representation manifold with the feedforward inputs, one-dimensional attractors can efficiently organize grid cell population activity into spaces of different dimensionalities, showcasing their versatility in encoding spatial information across various contexts.
What are the potential limitations or drawbacks of using flexible one-dimensional attractors compared to more rigid two-dimensional attractor networks for modeling grid cell organization?
While flexible one-dimensional attractors offer advantages in adapting to different dimensionalities, they also come with potential limitations compared to more rigid two-dimensional attractor networks. One limitation is the complexity of representing certain spatial patterns that may require a higher-dimensional organization. Two-dimensional attractors, with their fixed structure, may be better suited for encoding intricate spatial relationships that cannot be adequately captured by one-dimensional arrangements. Additionally, the flexibility of one-dimensional attractors may introduce variability in the alignment and organization of grid cells, which could impact the stability and consistency of spatial representations. In contrast, rigid two-dimensional attractor networks provide a more structured and predictable framework for grid cell organization, ensuring a more uniform and stable spatial code. Overall, while flexible one-dimensional attractors offer adaptability, they may lack the precision and robustness of rigid two-dimensional networks in modeling complex spatial representations.
How could the insights from this study on the decoupling of network architecture and represented space be applied to understanding attractor dynamics in other brain regions or cognitive functions beyond spatial representation?
The insights from this study on the decoupling of network architecture and represented space have broader implications for understanding attractor dynamics in other brain regions and cognitive functions beyond spatial representation. By demonstrating that the architecture and representational space of an attractor network can be two different topological objects, this study opens up new avenues for exploring attractor dynamics in diverse brain regions. For example, in cognitive functions such as memory formation or decision-making, where attractor networks play a crucial role in information processing, understanding the flexibility of attractors in organizing neural activity could provide insights into how different cognitive states are represented and maintained. Additionally, applying the concept of flexible attractors to other brain regions could shed light on how neural networks adapt to varying task demands and environmental conditions, offering a more nuanced understanding of brain function and dynamics beyond spatial navigation.
