4.7 Article

Irregular distribution of grid cell firing fields in rats exploring a 3D volumetric space

期刊

NATURE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 1567-1573

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41593-021-00907-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome [103896AIA, 208647/Z/17/Z, 213295/Z/18/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [213295/Z/18/Z, 208647/Z/17/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that in three-dimensional space, grid cells in rats exhibit different firing patterns compared to two-dimensional space, with more variable and irregularly arranged firing fields. This suggests that the self-organization of grid cells is influenced by the structure and movement affordances of the environment.
Grieves et al. show that when rats explore a 3D space, grid cells in the entorhinal cortex exchange their usual spatially regular firing patterns for more irregular ones, suggesting that 3D space is mapped differently than previously thought. We investigated how entorhinal grid cells encode volumetric space. On a horizontal surface, grid cells usually produce multiple, spatially focal, approximately circular firing fields that are evenly sized and spaced to form a regular, close-packed, hexagonal array. This spatial regularity has been suggested to underlie navigational computations. In three dimensions, theoretically the equivalent firing pattern would be a regular, hexagonal close packing of evenly sized spherical fields. In the present study, we report that, in rats foraging in a cubic lattice, grid cells maintained normal temporal firing characteristics and produced spatially stable firing fields. However, although most grid fields were ellipsoid, they were sparser, larger, more variably sized and irregularly arranged, even when only fields abutting the lower surface (equivalent to the floor) were considered. Thus, grid self-organization is shaped by the environment's structure and/or movement affordances, and grids may not need to be regular to support spatial computations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据