Differential functions of the dorsal and intermediate regions of the hippocampus for optimal goal-directed navigation in VR space

  1. Hyeri Hwang
  2. Seung-Woo Jin
  3. Inah Lee

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    The authors report valuable findings that temporary pharmacological inhibition targeting the dorsal or intermediate hippocampus in rats disrupted navigation to a goal location in a new virtual place-preference task and that functional inhibition of the intermediate hippocampus is more detrimental than functional inhibition of the dorsal hippocampus. The work has the potential to provide novel insights into function differentiation along the dorsal-ventral axis of the hippocampus. However, the evidence for the paper's claim that the dorsal hippocampus is responsible for accurate spatial navigation and the intermediate hippocampus for place-value associations is currently incomplete.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Goal-directed navigation requires the hippocampus to process spatial information in a value-dependent manner, but its underlying mechanism needs to be better understood. Here, we investigated whether the dorsal (dHP) and intermediate (iHP) regions of the hippocampus differentially function in processing place and its associated value information. Rats were trained in a place-preference task involving reward zones with different values in a visually rich VR environment where two-dimensional navigation was possible. Rats learned to use distal visual scenes effectively to navigate to the reward zone associated with a higher reward. Inactivation of the dHP or iHP with muscimol altered navigational patterns differentially. Specifically, measurements of the efficiency and accuracy of wayfinding behavior using directional analysis showed that iHP inactivation induced more severe damage to value-dependent navigation than dHP inactivation. Our findings suggest that the dHP is more critical for accurate spatial navigation to the target location per se, whereas the iHP is critical for finding higher-value goal locations.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7554/elife.97114.1 on eLife
  2. Version published to 10.7554/elife.97114 on eLife
  3. eLife

    eLife assessment

    The authors report valuable findings that temporary pharmacological inhibition targeting the dorsal or intermediate hippocampus in rats disrupted navigation to a goal location in a new virtual place-preference task and that functional inhibition of the intermediate hippocampus is more detrimental than functional inhibition of the dorsal hippocampus. The work has the potential to provide novel insights into function differentiation along the dorsal-ventral axis of the hippocampus. However, the evidence for the paper's claim that the dorsal hippocampus is responsible for accurate spatial navigation and the intermediate hippocampus for place-value associations is currently incomplete.

  4. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The manuscript examines the contribution of the dorsal and intermediate hippocampus to goal-directed navigation in a wide virtual environment where visual cues are provided by the scenery on the periphery of a wide arena. Among a choice of 2 reward zones located near the arena periphery, rats learn to navigate from the center of the arena to the reward zone associated with the highest reward. Navigation performance is largely assessed from the rats' body orientation when they leave the arena center and when they reach the periphery, as well as the angular mismatch between the reward zone and the site rats reach the periphery. Muscimol inactivation of the dorsal and intermediate hippocampus alters rat navigation to the reward zone, but the effect was more pronounced for the inactivation of the intermediate hippocampus, with some rat trajectories ending in the zone associated with the lowest reward. Based on these results, the authors suggest that the intermediate hippocampus is critical, especially for navigating to the highest reward zone.

    Strengths:

    _ The authors developed an effective approach to study goal-directed navigation in a virtual environment where visual cues are provided by the peripheral scenery.

    _ In general, the text is clearly written and the figures are well-designed and relatively straightforward to interpret, even without reading the legends.

    _ An intriguing result, which would deserve to be better investigated and/or discussed, was that rats tended to rotate always in the counterclockwise direction. Could this be because of a hardware bias making it easier to turn left, some aspect of the peripheral landscape, or a natural preference of rats to turn left that is observable (or reported) in a real environment?

    _ Another interesting observation, which would also deserve to be addressed in the discussion, is the fact that dHP/iHP inactivations produced to some extent consistent shifts in departing and peripheral crossing directions. This is visible from the distributions in Figures 6 and 7, which still show a peak under muscimol inactivation, but this peak is shifted to earlier angles than the correct ones. Such change is not straightforward to interpret, unlike the shortening of the mean vector length.

    Maybe rats under muscimol could navigate simply by using the association of reward zone with some visual cues in the peripheral scene, in brain areas other than the hippocampus, and therefore stopped their rotation as soon as they saw the cues, a bit before the correct angle. While with their hippocampus is intact, rats could estimate precisely the spatial relationship between the reward zone and visual cues.

    Weaknesses:

    _ I am not sure that the differential role of dHP and iHP for navigation to high/low reward locations is supported by the data. The current results could be compatible with iHP inactivation producing a stronger impairment on spatial orientation than dHP inactivation, generating more erratic trajectories that crossed by chance the second reward zone.

    To make the point that iHP inactivation affects the disambiguation of high and low reward locations, the authors should show that the fraction of trajectories aiming at the low reward zone is higher than expected by chance. Somehow we would expect to see a significant peak pointing toward the low reward zone in the distribution of Figures 6-7.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The aim of this paper was to elucidate the role of the dorsal HP and intermediate HP (dHP and iHP) in value-based spatial navigation through behavioral and pharmacological experiments using a newly developed VR apparatus. The authors inactivated dHP and iHP by muscimol injection and analyzed the differences in behavior. The results showed that dHP was important for spatial navigation, while iHP was critical for both value judgments and spatial navigation. The present study developed a new sophisticated behavioral experimental apparatus and proposed a behavioral paradigm that is useful for studying value-dependent spatial navigation. In addition, the present study provides important results that support previous findings of differential function along the dorsoventral axis of the hippocampus.

    Strengths:

    The authors developed a VR-based value-based spatial navigation task that allowed separate evaluation of "high-value target selection" and "spatial navigation to the target." They were also able to quantify behavioral parameters, allowing detailed analysis of the rats' behavioral patterns before and after learning or pharmacological inactivation.

    Weaknesses:

    Although differences in function along the dorsoventral axis of the hippocampus is an important topic that has received considerable attention, differences in value coding have been shown in previous studies, including the work of the authors; the present paper is an important study that supports previous studies, but the novelty of the findings is not that high, as the results are from pharmacological and behavioral experiments only.

  6. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    The authors established a new virtual reality place preference task. On the task, rats, which were body-restrained on top of a moveable Styrofoam ball and could move through a circular virtual environment by moving the Styrofoam ball, learned to navigate reliably to a high-reward location over a low-reward location, using allocentric visual cues arranged around the virtual environment.

    The authors also showed that functional inhibition by bilateral microinfusion of the GABA-A receptor agonist muscimol, which targeted the dorsal or intermediate hippocampus, disrupted task performance. The impact of functional inhibition targeting the intermediate hippocampus was more pronounced than that of functional inhibition targeting the dorsal hippocampus.

    Moreover, the authors demonstrated that the same manipulations did not significantly disrupt rats' performance on a virtual reality task that required them to navigate to a spherical landmark to obtain reward, although there were numerical impairments in the main performance measure and the absence of statistically significant impairments may partly reflect a small sample size (see comments below).

    Overall, the study established a new virtual-reality place preference task for rats and established that performance on this task requires the dorsal to intermediate hippocampus. They also established that task performance is more sensitive to the same muscimol infusion (presumably - doses and volumes used were not clearly defined in the manuscript, see comments below) when the infusion was applied to the intermediate hippocampus, compared to the dorsal hippocampus, although this does not offer strong support for the authors claim that dorsal hippocampus is responsible for accurate spatial navigation and intermediate hippocampus for place-value associations (see comments below).

    Strengths:

    (1) The authors established a new place preference task for body-restrained rats in a virtual environment and, using temporary pharmacological inhibition by intra-cerebral microinfusion of the GABA-A receptor agonist muscimol, showed that task performance requires dorsal to intermediate hippocampus.

    (2) These findings extend our knowledge about place learning tasks that require dorsal to intermediate hippocampus and add to previous evidence that, for some place memory tasks, the intermediate hippocampus may be more important than other parts of the hippocampus, including the dorsal hippocampus, for goal-directed navigation based on allocentric place memory.

    (3) The hippocampus-dependent task may be useful for future recording studies examining how hippocampal neurons support behavioral performance based on place information.

    Weaknesses:
    (1) The new findings do not strongly support the authors' suggestion that the dorsal hippocampus is responsible for accurate spatial navigation and the intermediate hippocampus for place-value associations.

    The authors base this claim on the differential effects of the dorsal and intermediate hippocampal muscimol infusions on different performance measures. More specifically, dorsal hippocampal muscimol infusion significantly increased perimeter crossings and perimeter crossing deviations, whereas dorsal infusion did not significantly change other measures of task performance, including departure direction and visits to the high-value location. However, these statistical outcomes offer only limited evidence that dorsal hippocampal infusion specifically affected the perimeter crossing, without affecting the other measures. Numerically the pattern of infusion effects is quite similar across these various measures: intermediate hippocampal infusions markedly impaired these performance measures compared to vehicle infusions, and the values of these measures after dorsal hippocampal muscimol infusion were between the values in the intermediate hippocampal muscimol and the vehicle condition (Figures 5-7). Moreover, I am not so sure that the perimeter crossing measures really reflect distinct aspects of navigational performance compared to departure direction and hit rate, and, even if they did, which aspects this would be. For example, in line 316, the authors suggest that 'departure direction and PCD [perimeter crossing deviation] [are] indices of the effectiveness and accuracy of navigation, respectively'. However, what do the authors mean by 'effectiveness' and 'accuracy'? Accuracy typically refers to whether or not the navigation is 'correct', i.e. how much it deviates from the goal location, which would be indexed by all performance measures.

    So, overall, I would recommend toning down the claim that the findings suggest that the dorsal hippocampus is responsible for accurate spatial navigation and the intermediate hippocampus for place-value associations.

    (2) The claim that the different effects of intermediate and dorsal hippocampal muscimol infusions reflect different functions of intermediate and dorsal hippocampus rests on the assumption that both manipulations inhibit similar volumes of hippocampal tissue to a similar extent, but at different levels along the dorso-ventral axis of the hippocampus. However, this is not a foregone conclusion (e.g., drug spread may differ depending on the infusion site or drug effects may differ due to differential expression of GABA-A receptors in the dorsal and intermediate hippocampus), and the authors do not provide direct evidence for this assumption. Therefore, a possible alternative account of the weaker effects of dorsal compared to intermediate hippocampal muscimol infusions on place-preference performance is that the dorsal infusions affect less hippocampal volume or less markedly inhibit neurons within the affected volume than the intermediate infusions. I would recommend that the authors briefly consider this issue in the discussion. Moreover, from the Methods, it is not clear which infusion volume and muscimol concentration were used for the different infusions (see below, 4.a.), and this must be clarified.

    (3) It is good that the authors included a comparison/control study using a spherical beacon-guided navigation task, to examine the specific psychological mechanisms disrupted by the hippocampal manipulations. However, as outlined below (4.b.), the sample size for the comparison study was lower than for the main study, and the data in Figure 8 suggest that the comparison task may be affected by the hippocampal manipulations similarly to the place-preference task, albeit less markedly. This would raise the question as to which mechanisms that are common to the two tasks may be affected by hippocampal functional inhibition, which should be considered in the discussion.

    (4) Several important methodological details require clarification:
    a. Drug infusions (from line 673):
    - '0.3 to 0.5 μl of either phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or muscimol (MUS) was infused into each hemisphere'; the authors need to clarify when which infusion volume was used and why different infusion volumes were used.
    - I could not find the concentration of the muscimol solution that was used. The authors must clarify this and also should include a justification of the doses used, e.g. based on previous studies.
    - Please also clarify if the injectors and dummies were flush with the guides or by which distance they protruded from the guides.
    b. Sample sizes: The authors should include sample size justifications, e.g. based on considerations of statistical power, previous studies, practical considerations, or a combination of these factors. Importantly, the smaller sample size in the control study using the spherical beacon-guided navigation task (n=5 rats) limits comparability with the main study using the place-preference task (n=8). Numerically, the findings on the control task (Figure 8) look quite similar to the findings on the place-preference task, with intermediate hippocampal muscimol infusions causing the most pronounced impairment and dorsal hippocampal muscimol infusions causing a weaker impairment. These effects may have reached statistical significance if the same sample size had been used in the place-preference study.
    c. Statistical analyses: Why were the data of the intermediate and dorsal hippocampal PBS infusion conditions averaged for some of the analyses (Figure 5; Figure 6B and C; Figure 7B and C; Figure 8B) but not for others (Figure 6A and Figure 7A)?

  7. Version published to 10.1101/2024.02.21.581413v1 on bioRxiv