47: Striatum as a mosaic of broken mirrors

The mosaic of broken mirrors is an analogy for the striatum in the basal ganglia [Da Cunha et al 2009]. The striatum represents a vertebrate’s actions and environment in a broken and overlapping fashion. While actions have focal projections to the striatum, the contextual input is broad and diffuse [Fee MS 2012]. While the hippocampus represents the environment globally, the striatum depends on piecewise representation. This means striatal learning is unable to generalize, because mosaic fragments lack a global perspective [Da Cunha et al 2009].

In the essays I’ve used the striatum as a timeout for food seek from an odor plume. When a food odor doesn’t have any food, or the odor is behind a barrier, the animal needs some sort of timeout to give up seeking the odor, turn away from the false odor, and search else where. However, the current simulation only uses the seek action for the timeout; it lacks environment context.

A simple illustration depicting two circular shapes; one has a blue and red figure inside, while the other contains a green star-like shape.
Simulation screenshot showing the model animal trapped into perseverating seek in the center of a false odor plume. Circles represent odor plumes and the star represents food.

The above simulation screenshot shows the general problem. The circles represent food odor plumes and the star represents food. The animal has followed a false odor plume and will continue circling the center until the striatum timeout. However, there is a nearby valid odor plume with food in it. The animal should avoid the false odor plume and search the correct odor plume, but currently it can’t distinguish the two, because it’s only using its own seek action as a key. If the animal could detect environmental context differences between the two plumes, it could search more effectively.

As a context, odor neighborhoods [Jacobs 2022], [Marin et al 2021] can represent a primitive representation of place. If each place has a different set of odor molecules, the animal can use that odor scene to distinguish false odor plumes from true food odor sources.

Striatum as timeout

In the essays I’ve used the striatum as a timeout mechanism to prevent perseveration, specifically the S.d2 (striatum projection neurons with D2.i Gi inhibiting dopamine receptor), which use A2a.s (adenosine Gs stimulating receptor) to measure the buildup of Ado (adenosine). The striatum’s projection neurons are roughly evenly divided between S.d1 (D1.s Gs stimulating dopamine receptor) and S.d2. For long stimulations, S.d1 generally motivate the current action and S.d2 opposes the action and produces avoidance [Soares-Cunha et al 2020], but for short stimulations both are active for action initiation [Cui G et al 2013].

Ado signaling limits swimming in frog tadpoles [Dale 1998]. In the striatum A2a.s receptors in S.d2 projection neurons also detect Ado buildup from neuron activity and from astrocytes that monitor neuron activity [Kang S et al 2020]. The Ado buildup activates S.d2 neurons and increases its internal PKA (protein kinase A) [Ma L et al 2022]. PKG slowly builds up during activity with a buildup time constant on the order of 10-20s and a decay constant on the order of 70s [Ma L et al 2022], but the increase appears to be log or sigmoid-like, not linear, suggesting that longer timeouts would be possible with high thresholds or opposition from S.d1. In S.d2, the PKA buildup enables the release of the opioid enkephalin [Konradi et al 2003], [Hook et al 2008], which activates the DOR.i (δ-opioid inhibitory receptor), which is necessary for the inhibitory/avoidance behavior for S.d2 [Soares-Cunha et al 2020].

Because the essay simulation needs a timeout to limit food seek perseveration, and the Ado and S.d2 avoidance chain could plausibly implement that timeout, I’ve been using it as the basis for the simulation’s timeout. This function seems evolutionarily plausible, because avoiding perseveration is important to keep the animal from unproductive seeking, and the implementation is fairly straightforward, only requiring already existing Ado timeout sensing and S.d2, without needing the entire basal ganglia. However, up to this point, that timeout has only used the action as a key, and has not included any context. Essay 15 and 16 did cover odor seek timeout in the context of associative habituation, but on the context of the fruit fly mushroom body.

Action and context as striatum inputs

S.pn (striatum projection neurons: both S.d1 and S.d2) are often called medium spiny neurons because their extensive dendrites are covered with spines. Spines are small dendrite compartments that receive axon inputs. Spines can compartmentalize Ca2+ (calcium) transients [Fang LZ and Creed 2024], meaning S.pn activation is not necessarily global across the entire dendrite tree, but compartmentalized. In S.d (dorsal striatum), cortical axons attach to S.pn spines, while T.pf (parafascicular thalamus) connects to the dendrite shaft [Fee MS 2012]. T.pf signals include ongoing action feedback and efference copies from the hindbrain and midbrain, including OT (optic tectum), while the cortex provides environmental context.

Diagram illustrating the connection between cortical inputs (C), thalamic inputs (T.pf), and striatum projection neurons (S.pn) via dendritic spines.
Rough diagram of inputs to S.pn dendrites. Cortical input is to distal dendrites and spines, while T.pf is more proximal and to dendrite shaft. C (cortex), S.pn (striatum projection neuron), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

Songbirds have a portion of the basal ganglia devoted to singing called Area X [Kornfeld et al 2020]. Area X receives song action variability information from C.lman (lateral nucleus of anterior nidopallum) and timing context from C.hvc, which are areas of the songbird cortex. C.lman provides an action efference copy of the variation actions [Fee MS 2014]. The majority (85%) of C.hvc input is on S.pn spines, while 55% of the C.lman action information is on the dendrite shafts [Kornfeld et al 2020]. The action efferent copy input to S.pn are not plastic, while the contextual input on the shafts is plastic [Fee MS 2012]. The context drives S.pn activation to an Up state, gating the core action driver [Fee MS 2012]. Action input to the striatum is focuses, while contextual information is diffuse [Fee MS 2012].

S.pn inputs can differ in their attachment to spines or dendrite shafts, and they can also differ in triggering behavior and for Up states. S.pn are normally hyper polarized, meaning they are normally especially difficult to trigger. Some inputs can shift S.pn into an Up state, where they are more easily triggered. In S.v (ventral striatum), inputs from E.sub.v (ventral subiculum in the hippocampal complex) can shift S.pn into an Up state for hundreds of millisecond [O’Donnell and Grace 1995], [Sesack and Grace 2010]. When E.sub.v is disable, S.v spontaneous or bistable activity halts, and other inputs such as F.pfc (prefrontal cortex) can’t trigger action potentials [O’Donnell and Grace 1995]. Up state transitions can be facilitated by dopamine [Fang LZ and Creed 2024], [Lahiri and Bevan 2020] and astrocyte sensing of glutamate activity [D’Ascenzo et al 2007], [Yu X et al 2018].

For the purposes of the essay simulation, these differences in striatum input suggest it’s plausible to treat action input and contextual input as distinct types of input, following [Fee MS 2012]. Specifically, that the combination of an action input and a context is required to drive the striatum timeout. This means that a seek timeout can be specific to a context and not overflow to other contexts.

Innate and contextual odors

In vertebrates, O.sn (odor sensory neurons) axons project to O.gl (glomerules) in Ob (olfactory bulb), where they connect with O.pn (odor projection neuron: mitral and tufted cells in mammals) dendrites. Each O.gl is a large neuropil (axon and dendrite connection area) where multiple O.sn and O.pn combine. In mammals, each O.gn responds to a single O.sn odor feature. Each O.gl typically responds to several odor molecules, and each odor molecule drives multiple O.gl [Wilson and Mainen 2006], [Weiss 2020]. In other vertebrates, each O.gl can combine inputs from multiple O.sn. Insect odor processing also uses glomerules, but this shared structure is independent evolution not homology because even the underlying odor detection receptors are unrelated between insects and vertebrates [Weiss 2020]. The glomeruli structure is likely simply an effective way of connecting multiple O.sn to O.pn.

As an analogy that the simulation uses, consider phonemes in a syllable, where each syllable is like an odor molecule and each phoneme is like a glomeruli. The syllable “cat” consists of “c-“, “-a-“, and “-t”, corresponding to three glomerules, and “c-” is driven by many different syllables. So, O.gl doesn’t identify the whole odor, but only a feature of the odor, like “c-“, but the features can be recombined to identify the odor.

The odor glomerules in vertebrates are divided into a smaller innate group and a larger contextual group. Most mammals have distinct Ob and O.a (accessory olfactory bulb). The lamprey Ob.m (medial Ob) projects directly to the midbrain, including Hb.m (medial habenula) and V.pt (posterior tuberculum) [Derjean et al 2010], [Beauséjour et al 2022], while the Ob.l (lateral Ob) projects to Pa (pallium/cortex) and basal ganglia [Beauséjour et al 2022], [Beauséjour et al 2024], [Suryanarayana et al 2021].

Previous essays have only used the innate Ob.m projection and ignored the Ob.l projection. This essays adds the Ob.l context projection to S.o t(olfactory tubercle), which is a part of S.v (ventral striatum) with large, direct olfactory input, and output to H.l (lateral hypothalamus) and Pv (ventral pallidum). The Ob.l context may represent odor neighborhoods, introducing a notion of place.

Odor neighborhoods

Odors rarely occur in isolation, are dynamic in space and time [Marin et al 2021], and form spatial neighborhoods [Jacobs 2022]. Olfactory curs influence E.hc (hippocampus) place fields, and place cells in blind rats are similar to sighted rats [Marin et al 2021]. In O.pir.p (posterior piriform cortex/olfactory cortex), place can be decoded to 90% accuracy with 240 neurons [Poo C et al 2022]. The olfactory spatial hypothesis considers odor are more for navigation than for identification [Jacobs 2012], where an odor neighborhood is a local area of odor mixtures.

It seems plausible that an early proto-vertebrate could use a combination of odor features from O.gl in an early S.v to restrict a seek timeout to a local place. The circuit is a straightforward extension of existing Ado timeout circuitry.

Seek striatum

For the essay’s simulation, I’m using odor context from Ob.l as a neighborhood detector. The striatum has two inputs: an action that enables the striatum during a seek and a place context identified by odor to restrict the search.

A simulation screenshot depicting various spatial representations of sensory inputs, including graphs and spatial maps related to odor detection and processing mechanisms.
Screenshot of the seek task blocked by a U-shaped barrier with odor neighborhoods represented by color and pattern. The local odor “rat” is represented by odor glomerules for “r-“, “-a-“, and “-t”.

The above screenshot shows the animal after its timeout from a failed odor seek when blocked by a barrier. The star represents food and the circle is an odor plume. Each pattern in the arena represents an odor neighborhood. The right side of the screenshot shows the active glomerules for the neighborhood, represented by “r-“, “-a-” and “-t”. I’m using syllables to represent odor molecules and phonemes to represent odor features detected by Ob glomerules.

Fruit fly mushroom body and Kenyon cells

Because the hypothetical proto-vertebrate would have a much simpler striatum than the mammal striatum, consider the comparison with the fruit fly MB (mushroom body) and its KC (Kenyon cells), which has a similar structure to the Sv projections to Pv, but has a much smaller scale. The mushroom body is highly conserved among insects and possibly predates all arthropods [Fiala and Kaun 2024], and serves as an odor pattern detector. In fruit flies, 52 O.pn project to ~2000 KC [Chan ICW et al 2024], which project to 24 MBON (mushroom body output neurons) [Seki et al 2017]. Each KC has three to seven claws [Zheng et al 2022], which are essentially single-connection dendrites.

A diagram illustrating the connectivity of Kenyon cells (KCs) in the fruit fly mushroom body, showing olfactory sensory neuron (OSN) inputs, projection neurons (PNs), and connections to mushroom body output neurons (MBONs) with their neurotransmitter types.
Architecture of the Drosophila mushroom body, adapted from [Aso Y et al 2014]. For this essay, only the left side projections of PN to KC are important. KC (Kenyon cell), PN (olfactory projection neuron), OSN (olfactory sensory neuron)

The above diagram shows the fruit fly mushroom body, but only the KC on the left are relevant for this essay. The MBON on the right would correspond to Pv (ventral pallidum) in this analogy. Each of the 2000 KC receive essentially random olfactory input from the O.pn, where each KC receives 3-7 O.pn inputs.

This mushroom body structure roughly corresponds to vertebrate O.pn projections to S.ot (ventral striatum olfactory tubercle), which projects to Pv. Although the connectivity pattern is similar, the two structures are not homologous in any fashion. Insect O.sn and vertebrate O.sn use entirely separate olfactory receptor families, and KCs use ACh (acetylcholine) as a neurotransmitter, while S.pn use GABA and vertebrate-specific opioids. The point of the analogy here is only to compare the scale of the O.gl and S.ot for a possible proto-vertebrate because the mammal S.ot is vastly too large to be plausible for that ancestor.

The MB has been compared to vertebrate CB-like (cerebellum-like) structures in the hindbrain [Farris 2011], suggesting that both serve as adaptive sensory filters. CB-like structures have dual inputs: one is sensory-specific input and the other is multimodal contextual. The MB also serves as a brake on insect locomotion, because fruit flies with MB lesions are less likely to stop locomotion once begun moving. This locomotion stopping is similar to the seek perseveration timeout in this essay.

Diagram comparing the olfactory processing pathways in insects and vertebrates. The insect mushroom body pathway includes odor sensory neurons (O.sn), odor projection neurons (O.pn), Kenyon cells (KC), and mushroom body output neurons (MBON), leading to seek/avoid responses. The vertebrate pathway similarly includes O.sn, O.pn, striatal projection neurons (S.pn), and the ventral pallidum (Pv), also leading to seek/avoid responses.
Analogy between the insect mushroom body and the vertebrate ventral basal ganglia. KC (Kenyon cells), MBON (mushroom body output neuron), O.pn (olfactory projection neuron), O.sn (olfactory sensory neuron), Pv (ventral pallidum), S.pn (striatum projection neuron)

For scale, consider using the lamprey Ob during the syllable analogy. The lamprey has approximately 40 olfactory receptor genes [Beauséjour et al 2020]. If we exclude about 10 innate from Ob.m, the 30 are contextual odors in Ob.l Consider splitting each odor as a syllable into three odor features as pheromones. If the 30 lamprey O.gl were organized like phonemes, then it might have 10 initial consonants, 10 vowels, and 10 final consonants. Suppose each S.pn receives three inputs from O.pn: one of 10 initial consonants, one of 10 vowels, and one of 10 final consonant. The 1000 S.pn would cover the possible syllables, expanding the dimensionality from 30 odor phonemes to 1000 odor syllables. Analogously, the Drosophila 52 O.pn phonemes expand to ~2000 KC syllables, roughly the same order of magnitude. Of course, the olfactory neighborhoods aren’t actually nicely ordered into convenient human-readable syllables, but it’s a convenience analogy, particularly for the simulation.

Returning to the original metaphor of the mosaic of broken mirrors [Da Cunha et al 2009], the O.pn breaks odor molecules (syllables and unbroken mirror) into a broken set of odor features (phonemes and mosaic tessera), and randomly reassembles the features in S.pn like tessera in a mosaic, partially recovering the original syllable structure, albeit lossy. Because the features are broken pieces stripped from their original odor molecule identity, the system could add other modalities, such as lateral line or whisker sensing, or temperature, or color fragments, before combining them, Although the fruit fly KCs primarily combine odor inputs, they also include a smaller number of non-odor inputs such as visual, gustatory, mechanosensory, and proprioceptive inputs [Farris 2011].

S.core seek and S.msh roam

So far I’ve used the striatum as a timeout to avoid seek perseveration, giving up on a failed food odor. Adding an odor neighborhood context improves the accuracy of seek perseveration control. Now that odor neighborhoods are available, the animal could also avoid neighborhoods that it’s already searched, essentially creating a memory breadcrumb, as explored in essay 44.

A diagram showcasing a grid with labeled sections including 'dm,' 'dl,' 'msh.d,' 'msh.v,' 'core,' 'lsh,' 'mot,' and 'lot,' indicating different components or regions.
Rough topographic divisions of the striatum. The blue S.msh.d is used for roam, and the amber S.core and S.lsh are used for seek. S.core (Sv core), S.dl (dorsolateral striatum), S.dm (dorsomedial striatum), S.lot (lateral S.ot – olfactory tubercle of Sv), S.lsh (lateral shell of Sv), S.mot (medial S.ot), S.msh.d (medial shell of Sv, dorsal part), S.msh.v (medial shell of Sv, ventral part), Sv (ventral striatum aka nucleus accumbens)

Sv (ventral striatum) is divided into S.core (Sv core) and S.sh (S shell), where S.core surrounds the anterior commissure, which connects Ob and amygdala. The shell further divides into S.msh (medial shell) and S.lsh (lateral shell), with S.ot also dividing into S.mot (medial S.ot) and S.lot (lateral S.lot). S.msh itself divides into S.msh.d (dorsal S.msh) and S.msh.v (ventral S.msh). These regions have distinct genetic transcription factor types and connectivity, and S.msh may be even more complicated with further genetically defined subtypes [Chen R et al 2021].

Functionally, S.lsh and S.core are more similar, related to cues and seek [Floresco 2015], [Chen G et al 2023], [Ding YD et al 2022], [Dobrovitsky 2017], while S.msh is distinct and related to place [Al-Hasani et al 2015], [Humphries and Prescott 2010], but not cues [Domingues et al 2025]. S.sh is important for place habituation: avoiding places already visited [Floresco 2015]. S.core is more associated with seek actions, and S.msh associated with place preference and avoidance [Fisher et al 2025]. S.ot is less studied, but is strongly Ob and O.pir related. Assigning S.lot to the same group as S.lsh and S.mot with S.msh is not well supported functionally, but does have some transcriptional support [Chen R et al 2021]. S.msh.d generally supports RTPP (real-time place preference) and S.msh.v RTPA (real-time place avoidance) [Ding YD et al 2022], [D’Aquila 2024], [Faget et al 2024], but because other studies report S.msh.d as necessary for cued avoidance [Ramirez et al 2015], the S.msh function may not be as simple as a clear RTPA/RTPP difference. Sv has three-dimensional aspects as well, with S.msh.a (anterior S.msh) and S.msh.p (posterior S.msh) having opposing seek and avoid motivation [Castro et al 2015], [Berridge 2019], [Bond et al 2020], [Marinescu and Labouesse 2024], with differing projections to locomotion vs eating regions [Richard and Berridge 2011].

As a complication for reading the research, because the heterogeneity of Sv regions was relatively recently discovered, many papers report results for S.sh without distinguishing between S.lsh, S.msh.d, or S.msh.v, despite these regions having different or even opposing functions. Older papers often simply report results for Sv without even distinguishing S.core from S.sh. Another complication is that Sv is also important for eating, not simply dedicated to seek or avoidance. Stimulating S.sh.a immediately stops eating [Reed et al 2018]. However, eating and roaming/seeking are related because they’re mutually exclusive: the animal needs ot stop roaming or seeking to eat. In case cases eating circuits may actually be stop-moving circuits, since 70% of S.sh are inhibited while eating and 30% are short lived excite while eating [Marinescu and Labouesse 2024]. Note that although the divisions in S.v are broadly topographic, some sub-functions could be mixed salt-and-pepper style, particularly in the complicated S.msh region.

So, the essay can add S.msh place habituation to avoid places already visited [Floresco 2015]. This seems likely to be S.msh.d because S.msh.v is more associated with threat avoidance [Ding YD et al 2022].

Odor neighborhoods for roaming

The odor spatial hypothesis suggests that the vertebrate Ob (olfactory bulb) is used more for spatial navigation than odor identification [Jacobs 2012]. Odors form spatial neighborhoods [Jacobs 2022], and the mammalian E.hc (hippocampus) place fields are driven by odor [Jacobs 2022]. Odors are rarely in isolation, but are dynamic in space and time. Place cells in blind rats are similar to sighted rats [Marin et al 2021]. A very old model of E.hc called it the rhinencephalon (nose brain), which was displaced by the discovery of spatial place fields, but if place is grounded by an old odor neighborhood circuit, then rhinencephalon may be accurate [Jacobs 2022].

For the essay simulation I’ve created two parallel basal ganglia paths for seek and roam. The seek path is only activated when the animal is following a food odor plume. The roam path is more broadly activated when the animal is searching for food. For specific paths, S.core and S.lsh appear specific to seek [Dobrovitsky 2017], [Soares-Cunha et al 2020], [Walle et al 2024]. Sv research doesn’t investigate roam circuits per se, but RTPA (real-time place avoidance) and RTPP (real-time place preference) and conditioned place preference are centered on S.msh [Britt et al 2012], [Marinescu and Labouesse 2024].

Flowchart illustrating the pathways in the basal ganglia for seeking and roaming behaviors in response to olfactory signals. Left side shows 'Ob.l place' input leading to seek and roam pathways, including interactions between various neural regions.
Paths used by the simulation for seek timeout and roam timeout with odor neighborhood context. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Hb.lm (lateral habenula, medial part), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), Ob.l (lateral olfactory bulb), Pv.dl (ventral pallidum, dorsolateral part), Pv.vm (ventral pallidum, ventromedial part), R1.a (anterior hindbrain locomotor region), R5.rs (mid-hindbrain turning region), S.core (ventral striatum core), S.msh.d (striatum medial shell, dorsal part), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus), V.rn (raphe nuclei)

The above diagram shows a hypothetical dual seek and roam circuit. S.core uses seek action feedback / efference copy to enable a seek timeout to avoid perseveration. S.msh.d uses H.l (lateral hypothalamus) roaming driver to enable place habituation to avoid searching places already visited.

A screenshot of a simulation showing an animal's movement in a patterned arena with various sections representing different odor neighborhoods. Circles denote active olfactory stimuli and a star marks the location of food. Syllables and phonemes are used to represent odor features.
Screenshot of the simulation with the animal leaving an area it’s already explored. The phonemes “d-“, “-o-“, and “-g” represent the current odor neighborhood.

The above screenshot shows the simulation for roaming odor neighborhood. Each pattern represents a different odor neighborhood. The phonemes on the right — “d-“, “-o-“, and “-g” — represent odor features of the neighborhood. The animal is avoiding the bottom neighborhood marked by blue horizontal lines because roaming has timed out for that neighborhood.

Box plot and violin plot comparing the distances traveled in an open field for two groups: with 'PvRoam' and without 'PvRoam'.
Monte Carlo simulation of the animal’s search. PvRoam represents roaming with timeout enabled. No PvRoam representing roaming without timeout.

As a test to verify that avoiding place repetition improves food search, I ran 300 Monte Carlo simulations for both the roam timeout enabled and disabled. In the simulation code, the timeout circuit is organized by its Pv projection, which owns the corresponding Sv. So enabling the roaming timeout means enabling PvRoam. The results suggest that avoiding place repetition improves performance by regarding the long-search tail of the distribution.

Discussion: multimodal feature inputs

The essay’s simulation only used odor features as striatum inputs for identifying neighborhoods, but the mosaic model can work with multimodal inputs. For example the lateral line sense can detect a barrier to the right of the animal, That signal can be added to the striatum mosaic to distinguish odor neighborhoods bordered by a reef from a neighborhood over sand. Temperature sensors can distinguish cold and warm neighborhoods. Similarly, even simple, non-imaging photoreceptors tuned to multiple colors could help distinguish sand from reef or deep blue ocean from shallow waters. Three or four bits of visual information could help distinguish neighborhoods without needing complicated visual processing.

Similarly, although the fruit fly mushroom body mainly has odor inputs, it also includes some visual, gustatory, and thermosensory input [Chan ICW et al 2024]. Like a striatum mosaic, the visual processing in the mushroom body isn’t complex, but it can distinguish environments.

Insect mushroom body as a cerebellum-like structure

An interesting comparison between the insect MB (mushroom body) and vertebrate CB-like (cerebellum-like) structures suggests that both act as adaptive sensory filters [Farris 2011]. Vertebrate CB-like structures, mainly in the hindbrain, use anti-Hebbian plasticity to predict and erase self-motion from sensor data [Bell et al 2008], [Montgomery et al 2012].

For example, the aquatic lateral-in sense uses water motion sensors to detect objects and prey. If the animal is swimming near an obstacle to the right, the relative water motion produces a curl around the animal, which a relatively simple circuit can decode to infer the barrier [Oteiza et al 2017]. Because the animal’s own swimming also produces water movement, a CB-like organ R.mon (medial octavo lateral nucleus) subtracts the self signal, enabling more accurate obstacle and prey detection.

Similar to the striatum context and action architecture explored in this essay, CB-like structures have a context formed by parallel fibers, which encodes multimodal combination of self-action and proprioceptive input, and a primary sensory input, which the context modulates. Also similar to this essay’s striatum model, repeated activation is anti-Hebbian: suppressing repeated activation.

There are major differences between the striatum and CB-like functionality, of course. CB-like structures form an adaptive filter to produce a more useful signal, while the striatum timeout in this essay avoid repeating search areas, and it’s hard to find any commonality in those two functions other than the very general avoidance of repetition.

Possible cortex enhancements

Because the simulation is a tow model, it hides the noise and signal problems. Odors in particular are difficult and messy sensor input because odors in water are clumpy, not the clean odor gradients and neighborhoods of the model. Real odor signals will appear and disappear, and neuron signals are generally short, between 3ms for fast AMPA receptors and 100ms NMDA receptors, but the odor needs much longer sustain, on the order of several seconds.

Cortical pyramidal neurons can activate a sustained ADP (afterdepolarization) model lasting on the order of 6-8 seconds when activated by ACh (acetylcholine) activating mACh.q (Gq coupled acetylcholine receptor). This sustained activity could stretch an odor neighborhood signal across the gaps in spotty odor receptor signal. A proto-vertebrate improvement could use a simple proton-cortical circuit as short term memory.

A more complicated improvement is associative pattern recognition. The mosaic striatum model can detect simple patterns, but it can’t generalize, and may be susceptible to noise and distractor signals. Typically, an odor scene will have multiple odor molecules, unlike the simulation’s simplified model. Cortex circuits could filter the noisy inputs and produce a more reliable input to the striatum, replacing direct Ob input with more conceptual O.pir (piriform cortex) engrams.

Odor and place

Although odors can form neighborhoods, they aren’t necessarily precise or reliable. One complicated improvement is dedicated cortical regions devoted to identifying place. O.pir ish the main olfactory cortex in mammals with homologous olfactory cortexes in other vertebrates. In mammals, O.pir.a (anterior O.pir) idenfieis odors, and O.pir.p (posterior O.pir) detects place [Poo C et al 2022]. The neuronal connectivity of O.pir.p resembles parts of E.hc, which is well-known to encode place.

Consider an evolutionary sequence of improvements that starts from a simple striatum mosaic that detects odor neighborhoods, then improves that primitive place detection with more sophisticated cortical place in O.pir.p. That single-mode odor place detection could then combine with other sensory modes using egocentric and allocentric inputs like head direction and landmarks into a more reliable place detection in E.hc.

References

Al-Hasani R, McCall JG, Shin G, Gomez AM, Schmitz GP, Bernardi JM, Pyo CO, Park SI, Marcinkiewcz CM, Crowley NA, Krashes MJ, Lowell BB, Kash TL, Rogers JA, Bruchas MR. Distinct Subpopulations of Nucleus Accumbens Dynorphin Neurons Drive Aversion and Reward. Neuron. 2015 Sep 2;87(5):1063-77. 

Beauséjour PA, Auclair F, Daghfous G, Ngovandan C, Veilleux D, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. Dopaminergic modulation of olfactory-evoked motor output in sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus L.). J Comp Neurol. 2020 Jan 1;528(1):114-134.

Beauséjour, P.A., Zielinski, B. and Dubuc, R., 2022. Olfactory-induced locomotion in lampreys. Cell and tissue research, pp.1-15.

Beauséjour PA, Veilleux JC, Condamine S, Zielinski BS, Dubuc R. Olfactory Projections to Locomotor Control Centers in the Sea Lamprey. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Aug 29;25(17):9370. 

Bell, Curtis C., Victor Han, and Nathaniel B. Sawtell. Cerebellum-like structures and their implications for cerebellar function. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31 (2008): 1-24.

Berridge KC. Affective valence in the brain: modules or modes? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019 Apr;20(4):225-234. 

Bond CW, Trinko R, Foscue E, Furman K, Groman SM, Taylor JR, DiLeone RJ. Medial Nucleus Accumbens Projections to the Ventral Tegmental Area Control Food Consumption. J Neurosci. 2020 Jun 10;40(24):4727-4738. 

Britt JP, Benaliouad F, McDevitt RA, Stuber GD, Wise RA, Bonci A. Synaptic and behavioral profile of multiple glutamatergic inputs to the nucleus accumbens. Neuron. 2012 Nov 21;76(4):790-803. 

Castro DC, Cole SL, Berridge KC. Lateral hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, and ventral pallidum roles in eating and hunger: interactions between homeostatic and reward circuitry. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Jun 15;9:90.

Chan, I.C.W., Chen, N., Hernandez, J., Meltzer, H., Park, A. and Stahl, A., 2024. Future avenues in Drosophila mushroom body research. Learning & Memory, 31(5), p.a053863.

Chen, G., Lai, S., Bao, G., Ke, J., Meng, X., Lu, S., Wu, X., Xu, H., Wu, F., Xu, Y. and Xu, F., 2023. Distinct reward processing by subregions of the nucleus accumbens. Cell reports, 42(2).

Chen R, Blosser TR, Djekidel MN, Hao J, Bhattacherjee A, Chen W, Tuesta LM, Zhuang X, Zhang Y. Decoding molecular and cellular heterogeneity of mouse nucleus accumbens. Nat Neurosci. 2021 Dec;24(12):1757-1771.

Da Cunha C, Wietzikoski EC, Dombrowski P, Bortolanza M, Santos LM, Boschen SL, Miyoshi E. Learning processing in the basal ganglia: a mosaic of broken mirrors. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Apr 12;199(1):157-70.

Dale N. Delayed production of adenosine underlies temporal modulation of swimming in frog embryo. J Physiol. 1998 Aug 15;511 ( Pt 1)(Pt 1):265-72. 

D’Ascenzo M, Fellin T, Terunuma M, Revilla-Sanchez R, Meaney DF, Auberson YP, Moss SJ, Haydon PG. mGluR5 stimulates gliotransmission in the nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Feb 6;104(6):1995-2000. 

D’Aquila, PS, 2024. Licking microstructure in response to novel rewards, reward devaluation and dopamine antagonists: possible role of D1 and D2 medium spiny neurons in the nucleus accumbens. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, p.105861.

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567. 

Ding YD, Chen X, Chen ZB, Li L, Li XY, Castellanos FX, Bai TJ, Bo QJ, Cao J, Chang ZK, Chen GM, Chen NX, Chen W, Cheng C, Cheng YQ, Cui XL, Duan J, Fang YR, Gong QY, Hou ZH, Hu L, Kuang L, Li F, Li HX, Li KM, Li T, Liu YS, Liu ZN, Long YC, Lu B, Luo QH, Meng HQ, Peng DH, Qiu HT, Qiu J, Shen YD, Shi YS, Si TM, Tang YQ, Wang CY, Wang F, Wang K, Wang L, Wang X, Wang Y, Wang YW, Wu XP, Wu XR, Xie CM, Xie GR, Xie HY, Xie P, Xu XF, Yang H, Yang J, Yao JS, Yao SQ, Yin YY, Yuan YG, Zang YF, Zhang AX, Zhang H, Zhang KR, Zhang L, Zhang ZJ, Zhao JP, Zhou RB, Zhou YT, Zhu JJ, Zhu ZC, Zou CJ, Zuo XN, Yan CG, Guo WB. Reduced nucleus accumbens functional connectivity in reward network and default mode network in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2022 Jun 6;12(1):236. 

Dobrovitsky V, West MO, Horvitz JC. The role of the nucleus accumbens in learned approach behavior diminishes with training. Eur J Neurosci. 2019 Nov;50(9):3403-3415. 

Domingues, A.V., Carvalho, T.T., Martins, G.J., Correia, R., Coimbra, B., Bastos-Gonçalves, R., Wezik, M., Gaspar, R., Pinto, L., Sousa, N. and Costa, R.M., 2025. Dynamic representation of appetitive and aversive stimuli in nucleus accumbens shell D1-and D2-medium spiny neurons. Nature communications, 16(1), p.59.

Faget L, Oriol L, Lee WC, Zell V, Sargent C, Flores A, Hollon NG, Ramanathan D, Hnasko TS. Ventral pallidum GABA and glutamate neurons drive approach and avoidance through distinct modulation of VTA cell types. Nat Commun. 2024 May 18;15(1):4233. 

Fang, L.Z. and Creed, M.C., 2024. Updating the striatal–pallidal wiring diagram. Nature neuroscience, 27(1), pp.15-27.

Farris, S.M., 2011. Are mushroom bodies cerebellum-like structures?. Arthropod structure & development, 40(4), pp.368-379.

Fee MS. Oculomotor learning revisited: a model of reinforcement learning in the basal ganglia incorporating an efference copy of motor actions. Front Neural Circuits. 2012 Jun 27;6:38. 

Fee MS. The role of efference copy in striatal learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2014 Apr;25:194-200. 

Fisher, A.A., Gonzalez, L.S., Cappel, Z.R., Grover, K.E., Waclaw, R.R. and Robinson, J.E., 2025. Dopaminergic encoding of future defensive actions in the mouse nucleus accumbens. PNAS nexus, 4(5), p.pgaf128.

Floresco SB. The nucleus accumbens: an interface between cognition, emotion, and action. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:25-52.

Hook, V., Toneff, T., Baylon, S. and Sei, C., 2008. Differential activation of enkephalin, galanin, somatostatin, NPY, and VIP neuropeptide production by stimulators of protein kinases A and C in neuroendocrine chromaffin cells. Neuropeptides, 42(5-6), pp.503-511.

Humphries MD, Prescott TJ. The ventral basal ganglia, a selection mechanism at the crossroads of space, strategy, and reward. Prog Neurobiol. 2010 Apr;90(4):385-417. 

Jacobs L. F. (2012). From chemotaxis to the cognitive map: the function of olfaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109(Suppl. 1) 10693–10700

Jacobs LF. How the evolution of air breathing shaped hippocampal function. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Feb 14;377(1844):20200532. 

Kang S, Hong SI, Lee J, Peyton L, Baker M, Choi S, Kim H, Chang SY, Choi DS. Activation of Astrocytes in the Dorsomedial Striatum Facilitates Transition From Habitual to Goal-Directed Reward-Seeking Behavior. Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Nov 15;88(10):797-808.

Konradi, C., Macı́as, W., Dudman, J.T. and Carlson, R.R., 2003. Striatal proenkephalin gene induction: coordinated regulation by cyclic AMP and calcium pathways. Molecular brain research, 115(2), pp.157-161.

Kornfeld, J., Januszewski, M., Schubert, P., Jain, V., Denk, W. and Fee, M.S., 2020. An anatomical substrate of credit assignment in reinforcement learning. BioRxiv, pp.2020-02.

Lahiri AK, Bevan MD. Dopaminergic Transmission Rapidly and Persistently Enhances Excitability of D1 Receptor-Expressing Striatal Projection Neurons. Neuron. 2020 Apr 22;106(2):277-290.e6. 

Ma L, Day-Cooney J, Benavides OJ, Muniak MA, Qin M, Ding JB, Mao T, Zhong H. Locomotion activates PKA through dopamine and adenosine in striatal neurons. Nature. 2022 Nov;611(7937):762-768. 

Marin AC, Schaefer AT, Ackels T. Spatial information from the odour environment in mammalian olfaction. Cell Tissue Res. 2021 Jan;383(1):473-483. 

Marinescu AM, Labouesse MA. The nucleus accumbens shell: a neural hub at the interface of homeostatic and hedonic feeding. Front Neurosci. 2024 Jul 30;18:1437210. 

Montgomery, John C., David Bodznick, and Kara E. Yopak. The cerebellum and cerebellum-like structures of cartilaginous fishes. Brain Behavior and Evolution 80.2 (2012): 152-165.

O’Donnell P, Grace AA. Synaptic interactions among excitatory afferents to nucleus accumbens neurons: hippocampal gating of prefrontal cortical input. J Neurosci. 1995 May;15(5 Pt 1):3622-39.

Poo C, Agarwal G, Bonacchi N, Mainen ZF. Spatial maps in piriform cortex during olfactory navigation. Nature. 2022 Jan;601(7894):595-599.

Ramirez F, Moscarello JM, LeDoux JE, Sears RM. Active avoidance requires a serial basal amygdala to nucleus accumbens shell circuit. J Neurosci. 2015 Feb 25;35(8):3470-7. 

Reed SJ, Lafferty CK, Mendoza JA, Yang AK, Davidson TJ, Grosenick L, Deisseroth K, Britt JP. Coordinated Reductions in Excitatory Input to the Nucleus Accumbens Underlie Food Consumption. Neuron. 2018 Sep 19;99(6):1260-1273.e4. 

Sesack SR, Grace AA. Cortico-Basal Ganglia reward network: microcircuitry. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Jan;35(1):27-47.

Soares-Cunha C, de Vasconcelos NAP, Coimbra B, Domingues AV, Silva JM, Loureiro-Campos E, Gaspar R, Sotiropoulos I, Sousa N, Rodrigues AJ. Nucleus accumbens medium spiny neurons subtypes signal both reward and aversion. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;25(12):3241-3255. 

Suryanarayana, S. M., Perez-Fernandez, J., Robertson, B., & Grillner, S. (2021). Olfaction in lamprey pallium revisited—dual projections of mitral and tufted cells. Cell Reports, 34(1).

Walle R, Petitbon A, Fois GR, Varin C, Montalban E, Hardt L, Contini A, Angelo MF, Potier M, Ortole R, Oummadi A, De Smedt-Peyrusse V, Adan RA, Giros B, Chaouloff F, Ferreira G, de Kerchove d’Exaerde A, Ducrocq F, Georges F, Trifilieff P. Nucleus accumbens D1- and D2-expressing neurons control the balance between feeding and activity-mediated energy expenditure. Nat Commun. 2024 Mar 21;15(1):2543. 

Weiss, L., 2020. Information processing in the olfactory system of different amphibian species (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation, Göttingen, Georg-August Universität, 2020).

Wilson, R.I. and Mainen, Z.F., 2006. Early events in olfactory processing. Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 29(1), pp.163-201.

Yu X, Taylor AMW, Nagai J, Golshani P, Evans CJ, Coppola G, Khakh BS. Reducing Astrocyte Calcium Signaling In Vivo Alters Striatal Microcircuits and Causes Repetitive Behavior. Neuron. 2018 Sep 19;99(6):1170-1187.e9.

44: Breadcrumb odor search

In the simulation, food search has two phases: a roaming phase, which is a correlated random walk, and a seek phase which climbs an odor gradient to food. Seek is very efficient, although it does require a timeout to handle false odor plumes, but roaming is essentially a random walk, leaving lots of opportunities for improvement. One possible improvement is reducing repeated search by avoiding already searched areas.

Evolutionary own-trail avoidance

Some of the earliest bilaterian fossil trails show the crawling animals avoiding crossing their own trail [Sims and Kiverstein 2022], suggesting this optimization existed in even the earliest bilaterians. The fossil trails also show wall-following (thigmotaxis). By combining own-trail avoidance, wall-following, and u-turns the bilaterians generated spiral-like paths that efficiently searched the local area.

The communal unicellular slime mold Physarum polycephalum leaves a trail of slime as it moves and the slime mold avoids its own trail [Reid et al 2012]. Physarum has been studied as solving complex search like the traveling salesman problem and maze escape. Even a simple animal can implement own-trail avoidance. Robot navigation and mapping has experimented with own-trail avoidance [Balch 1993]. Ants use pheromones to make trails to food [Jackson et al 2006], which is essentially an external memory for navigation.

The simulated animal represents a chordate proto-vertebrate, and the proto-vertebrates were freely swimming filter feeders, which essentially precludes leaving an odor trail because water currents would immediately disturb the odors. For the sake of this essay, I’m ignoring this practical implausibility, because I’m interested in how memory might use existing proto-vertebrate avoidance circuits. Using breadcrumbs as external memory can be a prelude to neural internal memory [Sims and Kiverstein 2022].

Odor avoidance

Odor trail avoidance could use at least two direct action paths in the proto-vertebrate brainstem. One path goes through Hb.mv (medial ventral habenula) to R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area), and another path goes through V.pt (posterior tuberculum) to MLR (midbrain locomotor region) to R5.rs (hindbrain reticulospinal motor). Hb.mv, R1.a, MLR, and R5.rs are all highly conserved areas in vertebrates, while V.pt is likely conserved as the equivalent to mammalian midbrain dopamine Vta (ventral tegmental area) and Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta). Other action paths exist using the cortex, but to keep the animal simple, I’m still postponing all cortical circuits.

In lampreys, the Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb) projects direction to Hb.m (medial habenula) [Stephenson-Jones et al 2012], [Suryanarayana et al 2021]. Zebrafish Ob also projects to right Hb.d (Hb.mv in mammals) to R.ip.v (ventral interpeduncular nucleus, R.ip.m medial R.ip for mammals) [Miyasaka et al 2014], [Choi JH et al 2021], [Krishnan et al 2014], [Turner 2016] which can support chemotaxis to avoid odors [Choi JH et al 2021], [Krishnan et al 2014].

The R.ip.v (R.ip.m for mammals) is interconnected with R1.a for motor and can drive taxis avoidance, including chemotaxis [Chen WY et al 2019], phototaxis [Chen X and Engert 2014], and chemotaxis [Palieri et al 2024].

Diagram illustrating neural circuitry involving the olfactory bulb (Ob.m), medial habenula (Hb.mv), interpeduncular nucleus (R.ip.m), ventral raphe (V.mr), and anterior hindbrain motor area (R1.a) for sensory processing and motor output.
Possible negative chemotaxis for breadcrumb avoidance using the lamprey odor to habenula path. Hb.mv (medial ventral habenula), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area), R.ip.m (median interpeduncular nucleus), V.mr (median raphe).

Tetrapods do not have a direct Ob to Hb connection, in contrast to the lamprey and possibly fish. In a the fire-bellied toad, a basal amphibian, the Ob only projects to the habenular commissure but not to Hb itself [Freudenmacher et al 2020]. Similarly, mammals do not have a direct Ob projection to Hb.mv. Instead, Hb.mv is almost entirely driven by posterior P.se (septum) [Viswanath et al 2014], [Yamaguchi et al 2013], [Choi K et al 2016], which is mainly driven by E.hc (hippocampus). This mammalian upgrade from direct Ob sensory input to cognitive E.hc input is a major reason I’m using this Hb.mv to R.ip.m path for the essay.

V.mr (median raphe) will be important fr this essay to detect transition from roaming to avoidance, allowing U-turns or directional turns only at border crossings. When the animal first enters the avoidance odor plume, it should turn away, but it shouldn’t continue turning while it’s inside the plume.

Odor seek

I’m treating the section path through V.pt as a seek action path because of its resemblance to the Vta/Snc connectivity with MLR, and the Ob to V.pt can drive movement [Derjean et al 2014], but I haven’t seen a study showing seek functionality. In lampreys Ob.m projects to V.pt [Derjean et al 2014], which drives MLR, which drives R5.rs (hindbrain reticulospinal motor neurons) [Beauséjour et al 2022]. Zebrafish Ob.m projects to V.pt [Imamura et al 2020].

A diagram illustrating the neural pathways involved in olfactory processing and locomotion, highlighting connections between various brain regions including Ob.m, V.pt, MLR, and R.rs.
Possible odor-seek path in lampreys and fish. MLR (midbrain locomotor), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), OT (optic tectum), R.rs (mid-hindbrain reticulospinal motor), V.pt (posterior tuberculum).

For this essay, I’m interpreting this circuit as a seek system to approach food odors. Because MLR is highly interconnected with OT (optic tectum), I’m considering this system as “tectal” although I’m not actually using OT for this essay.

An alternative breadcrumb path

An alternative path for memory could use Hb.lm (medial Hb.l – lateral habenula), which projects to V.mr.glu (glutamate V.mr) and Vta.pm (posterior-medial Vta). Vta.pm drives RTPA (real time place avoidance through S.msh.v (ventral S.msh – medial shell of the ventral striatum). V.mr.glu drives E.hc (hippocampus) theta through P.msdb (median septum and diagonal band), which can also drive RTPA itself.

Memory for avoiding repetition is the underlying goal here, but this essay is focused on a fictional breadcrumb odor, in part because the path is simpler. Although Hb.lm produces avoidance like Hb.mv, it’s more complicated to explain where the Hb.lm signal comes from. In contrast the lamprey Hb.mv is directly driven by Ob.m.

A diagram illustrating the neural circuit involving the medial habenula (Hb.lm), ventral tegmental area (Vta.pm), and associated pathways, depicting connections to regions such as V.mr.glu and E.hc.
Possible memory avoidance paths using the habenula, hippocampus and basal ganglia. E.hc (hippocampus), Hb.lm (medial lateral habenula), P.msdb (median septum and diagonal band), S.msh.v (ventral medial shell of the ventral striatum), V.mr.glu (median raphe glutamate projection), Vta.pm (posterior medial ventral tegmental area).

The above diagram shows a possible mammalian path for memory-based avoidance. Hb.lm is driven by S.msh (medial shell of the ventral striatum), which is associated with place preference and avoidance. Because the animal is avoiding already explored areas, this is a possible action path for mammals. However, that memory-based system requires far more neural machinery than the essay’s proto-vertebrate allows.

Medial habenula

For context (but not strictly needed for this essay), Hb.m has two areas with distinct circuits, although in mammals these two areas further subdivide into five subareas. In lampreys and fish Hb.d (mammal Hb.m) is asymmetrical. In fish, odor goes to the right Hb.m, and light input goes to the left Hb.m. The right odor input is used for chemotaxis [Chen R et al 2023], [Chen WY et al 2019], such as food seeking or avoiding predators. The light input is used as a landmark for body and head direction [Lavian et al 2024], such as using the sun as a compass.

A diagram illustrating the neural circuitry related to navigation, including connections between the habenula, direction pathways, and avoidance systems, with inputs from light and odor.
Median habenula divisions dorsal and ventral with their respective inputs and outputs. The dorsal Hb.m is for landmarks and head direction and the ventral Hb.m is for taxis, including chemotaxis and thermotaxis. Hb.md (dorsal Hb.m – medial habenula), Hb.mv (ventral Hb.m), P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure), P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmental area), P.ts (triangular septum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area), R.dta (dorsal tegmental area), R.dtg-vtg (dorsal tegmental area of Gudden, ventral tegmental area of Gudden), R.ip.l (lateral R.ip – interpeduncular nucleus), R.ip.m (median R.ip), R.nin (nucleus incertus), V.mr (median raphe).

Taxis and landmark information use different areas of R.ip. Taxis uses R.ip.m (median R.ip in mammals, ventral R.ip in fish) [Krishnan et al 2014], and direction uses R.ip.l (lateral R.ip in mammals, dorsal R.ip in fish) [Lavian et al 2024]. R.ip.l and R.ip.m correspondingly project differently. R.ip.l is interconnected with directional nuclei in R.dta (dorsal tegmental area) such as R.dtg (dorsal tegmental nucleus of Gudden) for head direction, R.vtg (ventral tegmental nucleus of Gudden), and R.nin (nucleus incertus) for eye direction. R.ip.m is connected with motivational areas such as V.mr, P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmentum) and the motor R1.a.

In mammals, Hb.m only receives input from the posterior septum, specifically P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure), P.ts (triangular septum), P.sf (septofimbrial nucleus), and P.ms (median septum) [Juárez-Leal et al 2022]. These septal areas are largely driven by E.hc. This indirect, cognitive hippocampal input for mammals contrasts with the direct sensory input for fish and lampreys.

Full habenula

For further context, Hb.l (lateral habenula) also divides into two major areas, which further subdivide into nine subnuclei. Hb.lm (medial Hb.l) will likely be important soon because it’s an avoidance path that projections directly to V.mr and Vta.pm motivational avoidance areas, but it’s not yet important for this essay. Hb.lm is important for avoidance and Hb.ll (lateral Hb.l) for failure. Hb.ll.ov (oval sub nucleus of Hb.ll) is highly studied for its role in dopamine motivation and learning, and its inputs are specific to Hb.ll.ov, which contrasts with other Hb.l inputs that are more diffuse.

Zebrafish Hb.v (Hb.l in mammals) only projects to the serotonin are V.mr, but not to dopamine areas [Agetsuma et al 2010]. Because lamprey Hb.l does project to dopamine as well as serotonin areas [Stephenson-Jones et al 2012], the zebrafish may be a secondary loss, but it does suggest that V.mr is more critical to Hb.l than the dopamine projection.

A diagram illustrating the neural circuits involved in memory-based avoidance and navigation in a proto-vertebrate, including various pathways related to odor, light, and direction, with connections to specific brain areas such as the habenula and reticular formation.
Functional connectivity of the habenula. H.l.glu (lateral habenula glutamate projection), Hb.ll (oval nucleus of the lateral Hb.l – lateral habenula), Hb.lm (medial Hb.l), Hb.md (dorsal Hb.m – medial habenula), Hb.mv (ventral Hb.m), P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure), P.epn (endopeduncular nucleus), P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmental area), P.ts (triangular septum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area), R.dta (dorsal tegmental area), R.dtg-vtg (dorsal and ventral tegmental nuclei of Gudden), R.ip.l (lateral R.ip – interpeduncular nucleus), R.ip.m (medial R.ip), V.mr (median raphe), Vta.l (lateral Vta – ventral tegmental area), Vta.pm (posteromedial Vta).

The above diagram shows a functional diagram of Hb and some of its inputs and outputs. This essay uses Hb.mv avoidance taxis for avoid the breadcrumb odor. The next essay may use Hb.lm avoidance (non-taxis avoidance) for place avoidance memory. Hb.md landmark and Hb.ll failure are not currently used in the simulation, but may become important soon.

Simulation

The essay’s simulation has the animal searching for food using a correlated random walk as its base search strategy. Adding breadcrumbs for the animal’s own path could potentially improve the search by avoiding re-searching old areas. The simulation uses an Ob to Hb.m path, which then drives R1.a motor area. If the animal detects a breadcrumb, it turns away from its current path.

Diagram illustrating the neural pathways involved in navigation and motor control, featuring connections from the olfactory bulb to the habenula, raphe area, and hindbrain motor areas.
Simulation modules for the breadcrumb negative taxis. Hb.mv (ventral Hb-m – medial habenula), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area), R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus), V.mr (median raphe).

The above diagram shows the simulation modules in this breadcrumb avoidance action path. HbTaxis includes both Hb.m and R.ip. The Raphe module represents V.mr and stores the current for a short time on the order of a second. The animal should only make a U-turn if it newly encounter its trail. If it’s already avoiding the trail, it should move ballistically. The Raphe module maintains the current avoidance action to enable boundary-only turns.

A simulation diagram showing a purple blob representing a moving object, with a food target (green star) in the center of a bounded area. A red trajectory indicates the path taken by the object.
Screenshot of the animal seeking food in an open field. The teal star represents food, the teal circle represents its odor plume, and the purple circles represent the breadcrumb trail.

Simulation roam

Roaming is driven by circadian wake and by a FoodZone detection, as used in essay 43. Parts of H.l respond to the animal entering a food zone [Jennings et al 2015]. For this essay, H.l HypMove drives roam when outside a food zone and pauses inside a food zone for filter feeding. HypMove represents the SLR (subthalamic / hypothalamic locomotor region), which is part of H.l [Ji C et al 2024].

Flowchart illustrating signal pathways in a simulation model for a food-seeking behavior in a fictional proto-vertebrate, showing inputs like 'FoodZone' and motor outputs.
Simulation modules for roaming. Wake and hunger drives roaming, which stops when the animal reaches a food zone. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.scn (suprachiasmatic nucleus – circadian), N.sp (spinal cord), P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis), SLR (subthalamic motor region), S.ls (lateral septum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor area).

Importantly, the roaming signal needs to disable breadcrumb avoid. If the animal is in a food zone, any roaming optimization needs to stop when roaming stops. In the essay’s stimulation, I’m using R1.a HindMove as an integration point for roaming motivation with the chemotaxis.

Simulation seek

The breadcrumb avoidance needs to coordinate with the Seek module. Seek follows a target odor toward food, essentially chemotaxis. The Seek module implements a bilateral, directional seek. In lamprey the V.pt receives direct input from Ob and projects to MLR [Derjean et al 2010], [Beauséjour et al 2022], [Beauséjour et al 2024], which drives locomotion through R5.rs.chx10 (mid-hindbrain reticulospinal) [Cregg et al 2020]. The Seek module is enabled by HypMove, which represents H.l, in particular its roaming signal.

A flowchart illustrating the neural pathways involved in seeking behavior, detailing connections from the olfactory bulb (ObGlom) to various motor control centers, including Striatum, MidMove, and HindMove.
Simulation modules for the seek action path, directly driven by olfactory input. H.l (lateral habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), N.sp (spinal cord), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), S.lsh (lateral shell of the ventral striatum), R5.chx10 (mid-hindbrain locomotor region), V.pt (posterior tuberculum).

The Seek module uses an entirely different locomotion action path than the breadcrumb’s avoid action path. Seek drives MidMove, representing MLR, which projects to R5.rs.chx10 (mid-hindbrain reticulospinal motor area), which is distinct form the R1.a motor area. In contrast the breadcrumb taxis used HbTaxis to the HindMove R1.a module. These two action paths only directly interact at the spinal cord motoneurons. Because there’s not central node that manages these two action paths, they need to inhibit each other as a distributed system.

Importantly, the Seek module needs a timeout to avoid perseveration. I’m using the striatum as a timeout system, as I’ve done in that last few essays. The striatum region would likely correspond to the mammalian S.lsh (lateral shell of S.v – ventral striatum) or S.core (core of S.v) because those are involved with seeking, as opposed S.msh (medial shell of S.v), which is more involved with place.

A diagram showing a simulated animal's path in a maze-like environment, including a dark area, an odor plume highlighted in light blue, and a food target represented by a teal star.
Screenshot of the U-trap scenario as the animal times out its seek. The teal star represents the food zone and the teal disk represents its odor plume.

The above screenshot shows the animal just after the striatum timeout expire. The circular teal area is an odor plume, the teal star is the food zone, and the beige walls are barriers. While Seek is active, the animal struggles against the barrier to try to follow the odor plume. When the striatum expires, the animal returns to its roaming.

Monte Carlo results

I updated the simulation framework to enable Monte Carlo experiments without using the graphical view. Each scenario timed the animal searching, finding, and eating food with success defined as nutrients in the animal’s gut. The scenarios executed 200 times. The two scenarios maps were an open field and a U-shaped trap. Each map had a scenarios with a large seek odor plume and a scenario without an odor plume.

Box plot comparing results for roaming and trail strategies in an open field and trap scenarios, with additional histogram for open field roam.
Monte Carlo results comparing roaming without breadcrumb avoidance against trail avoidance.

Although the breadcrumb trail shows a small improvement in the open field, it’s a minor difference. For this simple implementation there isn’t a huge gain with the breadcrumbs. It’s possible that a better implementation would improve the results, but this essay was looking for large gains from a simple change.

The breadcrumb strategy did avoid crossing the animal’s trail more than the roaming-only strategy, but often the breadcrumbs pushed the animal away from the goal. If the animal made a mistaken turn away from the goal, the trail-avoidance would exacerbate that mistake by driving the animal to search further away from the goal. In contrast the default roam would often reverse its mistake.

The seek trap scenario found that striatum timeout with avoid was better than timeout that just disabled seek. If that result generalizes, it might help explain why the S.v (ventral striatum) output region P.v (ventral pallidum) produces avoidance when triggered by S.d2 (striatum projection neurons with D2.i inhibitory dopamine receptors) indirect path.

The seek trap also showed the need for progressively increasing timeout. Because the timeout recovery time is currently fixed, the animal could restart seeking before exiting the trap, producing a cycle of seek and timeout. The current striatum timeout matches the adenosine building on the timeframe of 120s to 180s, but it doesn’t include longer term plasticity. Plasticity would progressively increase the timeout on the order of 20 minutes to an hour.

Issues raised by the simulation

The simulation raised several issues because it integrated multiple action paths that I’d previously implemented independently.

  • The breadcrumb avoid in Hb-R.ip should respect the roam and food zone calculated in H.l.
  • The breadcrumb avoid is distinct from chemotaxis avoid such as avoiding predator odor, which is also in the Hb-R.ip circuit.
  • How does the breadcrumb avoid interact with ARTR (anterior hindbrain turning region)?
  • How does the R.pb (parabrachial) toxic-environment avoid interact with the Hb-R.ip taxis avoid?
  • How does V.rn (serotonin raphe nuclei) interact with Hb-R.ip and R1.a? These regions are highly interconnected.
  • Avoid itself should have a timeout. S.msh.v and Vta.pm are activated for avoidance and could serve as an avoidance timeout.
  • Seek (V.pt) uses a different MLR action path and mid-hindbrain R5.rs than the anterior hindbrain R1.a motor output used by SLR roam and Hb-R.ip avoidance. How is this conflict managed? In the lamprey, inhibiting SLR does not affect the Ob to MLR to R5.rs action path [Derjean et al 2010].
  • Seek needs to stop when roaming stops for a food zone.
  • Seek timeout needs to progressively increase when the initial timeout is insufficient to escape the U-trap.

Roam vs seek action paths

I’m treating the roam action path as distinct from the seek path. Roam uses Hb.m → R.ip → R1.a using SLR, but seek uses V.pt → MLR → R5.rs.chx10. These two paths use similar input from innate-odor Ob.m and final output N.sp (spinal motoneurons), but everything else is independent. I’m associating the roaming path with limbic areas and seek path with tectal-associated areas, but OT (optic tectum) is not part of the essay’s simulation. The important issue here is how the two paths interact.

For the seek path I’m using the lamprey V.pt as a proto-vertebrate seek precursor to the mammalian Vta.l and S.lsh seek system.

Flowchart illustrating the interaction between the roam and seek modules in a neurobiological simulation. It shows connections between brain regions responsible for navigation and movement, labeled with abbreviations for specific circuits and pathways.
Subcircuit showing the distinct action paths for roaming and seeking. Roaming is associated with SLR and limbic areas, and seeking is associated with MLR and tectal-associated areas. Hb.mv (ventral medial habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), N.sp (spinal motoneurons), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmental area), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor region), R5.chx10 (mid-hindbrain motor region), V.pt (posterior tuberculum).

Studies involving nicotine addiction have identified an inhibitory path in mammals from R.ip avoidance via P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmentum) and the Vta to S.lsh circuit [Wolfman et al 2018], [Kim K and Picciotto 2023]. R.ip ⊣ P.ldt → Vta.l → S.lsh. R.ip inhibits P.ldt, which inhibits Vta.l phasic dopamine, which inhibits seek.

For the simulation, I’m using P.ldt as an inhibitory path from HbTaxis to inhibit Seek. In mammals P.ldt and Ppt (pedunculo-pontine tegmentum) are distinct but related areas, but non-mammal studies do not show distinct areas, at least for the studies I’ve read. I’m assuming a proto-vertebrate would have a single Ppt/P.ldt complex. Ppt is either part of the MLR or at least highly associated with it, and Ppt is highly interconnected with OT.

Simulation model

The Hb.m roam and V.pt seek action paths described above need to interact with the hunger and food-zone driving input from H.l HypMove. In this system, H.l HypMove drives both R1.a and V.pt. In mammals H.l as SLR drives R1.a for roaming [Ji C et al 2024]. Mammalian H.l is also strongly interconnected with Vta.

Diagram illustrating the interaction between roam and seek action paths in a simulated animal searching for food, highlighting motor areas and sensory inputs.
Roaming and seek action path interaction in the simulation. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Hb.mv (ventral Hb.m – medial Habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), N.sp (spinal cord motoneurons), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), OT (optic tectum), P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmentum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain motor), R5.chx10 (mid-hindbrain motor), R.pb.l (lateral parabrachial), SLR (subthalamic locomotor region), S.lsh (lateral shell of S.v – ventral striatum).

The R.pb.l tactile toxic avoidance needs to interact with the R1.a roaming circuit. The simulation’s R.pb.l RpbAvoid drives avoiding in R1.a HindMove, which is almost certainly incorrect. R.pb drives avoidance for place-specific irritations like itch. This R.pb itch-avoidance projection is to hypothalamic nuclei such as H.pv and H.l, and is distinct from R.pb projections for S.a (central amygdala), and P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis), which functionally handles food-related issues like sickness. In the diagram, the dotted line from RpbAvoid to HypMove does not currently exist in the simulation, but I will need to change that connectivity in a later essay.

Discussion

The experiment explored if a simple breadcrumb odor could improve searching for food. The breadcrumb odor drives an avoidance circuit in R1.a using the same avoidance action path as for predator odors with Hb.m to R.ip. The essay’s implementation did not show a significant improvement from roaming random walk.

One possibility is that this result is accurate and a simple breadcrumb trail is not an improvement over random walk for this scenario. The breadcrumb avoids crossing the animal’s own path. When the animal makes a wrong choice away from the food, this avoidance can exacerbate the error by forcing the animal to continue searching further away instead of crossing the trail to correct the mistake.

Another possibility is that the essay’s implementation is too simplistic or is broken. While possible or even likely, I’d have expected that if breadcrumbs provide an immediate large improvement, that even a flawed implementation would show significant gains.

The most significant improvement for seeking was the timeout and subsequent avoidance when the animal gave up seeking the odor. This timeout avoidance was more effective than the breadcrumb avoidance of the seek, and both were more effective with giving up and resuming roam without an avoidance phase. The striatum as a timeout and memory device is both simpler than a complicated mental breadcrumb system and potentially more effective.

References

Agetsuma M., Aizawa H., Aoki T., Nakayama R., M. Takahoko, M. Goto, T. Sassa, R. Amo, T. Shiraki, K. Kawakami, et al. The habenula is crucial for experience-dependent modification of fear responses in zebrafish Nat. Neurosci., 13 (2010), pp. 1354-1356

Balch, T., 1993, May. Avoiding the past: A simple but effective strategy for reactive navigation. In [1993] Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 678-685). IEEE.

Beauséjour, P.A., Zielinski, B. and Dubuc, R., 2022. Olfactory-induced locomotion in lampreys. Cell and tissue research, pp.1-15.

Beauséjour PA, Veilleux JC, Condamine S, Zielinski BS, Dubuc R. Olfactory Projections to Locomotor Control Centers in the Sea Lamprey. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Aug 29;25(17):9370.

Chen R, Xu X, Wang XY, Jia WB, Zhao DS, Liu N, Pang Z, Liu XQ, Zhang Y. The lateral habenula nucleus regulates pruritic sensation and emotion. Mol Brain. 2023 Jun 27;16(1):54. 

Chen WY, Peng XL, Deng QS, Chen MJ, Du JL, Zhang BB. Role of Olfactorily Responsive Neurons in the Right Dorsal Habenula-Ventral Interpeduncular Nucleus Pathway in Food-Seeking Behaviors of Larval Zebrafish. Neuroscience. 2019 Apr 15;404:259-267.

Chen X, Engert F. Navigational strategies underlying phototaxis in larval zebrafish. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 Mar 25;8:39. 

Choi JH, Duboue ER, Macurak M, Chanchu JM, Halpern ME. Specialized neurons in the right habenula mediate response to aversive olfactory cues. Elife. 2021 Dec 8;10:e72345.

Choi K, Lee Y, Lee C, Hong S, Lee S, Kang SJ, Shin KS. Optogenetic activation of septal GABAergic afferents entrains neuronal firing in the medial habenula. Sci Rep. 2016 Oct 5;6:34800. 

Cregg JM, Leiras R, Montalant A, Wanken P, Wickersham IR, Kiehn O. Brainstem neurons that command mammalian locomotor asymmetries. Nat Neurosci. 2020 Jun;23(6):730-740. 

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567.

Freudenmacher, L., Schauer, M., Walkowiak, W., & von Twickel, A. (2020). Refinement of the dopaminergic system of anuran amphibians based on connectivity with habenula, basal ganglia, limbic system, pallium, and spinal cord. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 528(6), 972-988.

Imamura F, Ito A, LaFever BJ. Subpopulations of Projection Neurons in the Olfactory Bulb. Front Neural Circuits. 2020 Aug 28;14:561822. 

Jackson, D.E., Martin, S.J., Holcombe, M. and Ratnieks, F.L., 2006. Longevity and detection of persistent foraging trails in Pharaoh’s ants, Monomorium pharaonis (L.). Animal Behaviour, 71(2), pp.351-359.

Jennings JH, Ung RL, Resendez SL, Stamatakis AM, Taylor JG, Huang J, Veleta K, Kantak PA, Aita M, Shilling-Scrivo K, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Otte S, Stuber GD. Visualizing hypothalamic network dynamics for appetitive and consummatory behaviors. Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):516-27. 

Ji, C., Zhang, Y., Lin, Z., Zhao, Z., Jiao, Z., Zheng, Z., Shi, X., Wang, X., Li, Z., Yu, S. and Qu, Y., 2024. Activation of hypothalamic-pontine-spinal pathway promotes locomotor initiation and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. bioRxiv, pp.2024-11.

Juárez-Leal I, Carretero-Rodríguez E, Almagro-García F, Martínez S, Echevarría D, Puelles E. Stria medullaris innervation follows the transcriptomic division of the habenula. Sci Rep. 2022 Jun 16;12(1):10118. 

Kim, K. and Picciotto, M.R., 2023. Nicotine addiction: More than just dopamine. Current opinion in neurobiology, 83, p.102797.

Krishnan S, Mathuru AS, Kibat C, Rahman M, Lupton CE, Stewart J, Claridge-Chang A, Yen SC, Jesuthasan S. The right dorsal habenula limits attraction to an odor in zebrafish. Curr Biol. 2014 Jun 2;24(11):1167-75.

Lavian, H., Prat, O., Petrucco, L., Stih, V. and Portugues, R., 2024. The representation of visual motion and landmark position aligns with heading direction in the zebrafish interpeduncular nucleus. BioRxiv, pp.2024-09.

Miyasaka N, Arganda-Carreras I, Wakisaka N, Masuda M, Sümbül U, Seung HS, Yoshihara Y. Olfactory projectome in the zebrafish forebrain revealed by genetic single-neuron labelling. Nat Commun. 2014 Apr 9;5:3639.

Palieri V, Paoli E, Wu YK, Haesemeyer M, Grunwald Kadow IC, Portugues R. The preoptic area and dorsal habenula jointly support homeostatic navigation in larval zebrafish. Curr Biol. 2024 Feb 5;34(3):489-504.e7.

Reid, C.R., Latty, T., Dussutour, A. and Beekman, M., 2012. Slime mold uses an externalized spatial “memory” to navigate in complex environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(43), pp.17490-17494.

Sims, M. and Kiverstein, J., 2022. Externalized memory in slime mould and the extended (non-neuronal) mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 73, pp.26-35.

Stephenson-Jones M, Floros O, Robertson B, Grillner S. Evolutionary conservation of the habenular nuclei and their circuitry controlling the dopamine and 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HT) systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jan 17;109(3):E164-73. 

Suryanarayana, S. M., Perez-Fernandez, J., Robertson, B., & Grillner, S. (2021). Olfaction in lamprey pallium revisited—dual projections of mitral and tufted cells. Cell Reports, 34(1).

Turner KJ, Hawkins TA, Yáñez J, Anadón R, Wilson SW, Folgueira M. Afferent Connectivity of the Zebrafish Habenulae. Front Neural Circuits. 2016 Apr 26;10:30. 

Viswanath H, Carter AQ, Baldwin PR, Molfese DL, Salas R. The medial habenula: still neglected. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jan 17;7:931. 

Wolfman SL, Gill DF, Bogdanic F, Long K, Al-Hasani R, McCall JG, Bruchas MR, McGehee DS. Nicotine aversion is mediated by GABAergic interpeduncular nucleus inputs to laterodorsal tegmentum. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 13;9(1):2710. 

Yamaguchi T, Danjo T, Pastan I, Hikida T, Nakanishi S. Distinct roles of segregated transmission of the septo-habenular pathway in anxiety and fear. Neuron. 2013 May 8;78(3):537-44. 

43: Filter-feeding and Roaming

I’m revisiting feeding, because it’s central to the vertebrate brain’s organization, redoing essay 23: feeding, essay 27: feeding state machine, essay 36: R.pb as tunicate brain, and essay 38: food zone. For this essay, I’m leaning harder into the proto-vertebrate as a filter feeder [Mallat 2021], similar to the chordate amphioxus [Chung J et al 2023]. Proto-vertebrate filter feeding is essentially breathing, and vertebrate breathing itself developed from filter feeding [Li S and Wang F 2021]. This filter feeding circuitry is distinct from the jawed vertebrate searching for small morsels of food and quickly eating them, which is a more action-oriented process.

I’m focusing again on the transition between locomotion and feeding, but this time using the DLR (diencephalic locomotor region) and introducing opioids as a feeding signal. To keep the system manageable, I’m disabling the seek system, such as chemotaxis, and only using a simple random walk roaming search. The whole system can then be reduced to switching between a roaming search phase and a resting, filter-feeding stage.

Filter-feeding state machine

Consider a simple proto-vertebrate filter-feeder, similar to amphioxus [Chung J et al 2023] or an ascidian that continued locomotion through adulthood. Unlike ascidians that lose locomotion [Osugi et al 2017], the proto-vertebrate would alternate filter feeding in a location with moving to a new location. The animal might move because the filter feeding didn’t produce any nutrients or because of a noxious environment or to avoid a predator.

Because the proto-vertebrate is no simple, it might use the same system as ascidians to choose a filter feeding place: either finding odor, taste, and touch that indicates a good place to stop, or timing out and settling for the current place if it hasn’t found an ideal place.

Minimal filter feeding behavior, switching between a locomotor search phase and a sedentary filter feeding stage. The labelled neuropeptides are suggestions for managing the state transitions. A2a.s (adenosine Gs receptor), DA (dopamine), DOR.i (δ-opioid Gi receptor), MOR.i (μ-opioid Gi receptor), npy (neuropeptide Y), tac1.q (tachykinin 1 Gq receptor).

The above state diagram shows a minimal behavior for a simple filter feeder. The search for food can time out with A2a.s (adenosine receptor), or it can halt earlier if a food zone is found with DOR.i (δ-opioid Gi inhibiting receptor for enkephalin). Filter feeding ends continues as long as the feeding produces food, signaled by MOR.i (μ-opioid Gi receptor). The animal leaves the feeding place and filter feeding ends if the environment is hazardous with tac1.q (tachykinin 1 Gq receptor for substance P) or when filter feeding doesn’t produce food, and the animal remains hungry, signaled by NPY (neuropeptide Y). Similarly, if the search state has a promising seek target, DA (dopamine) extends the search.

Expanding the filter feeding state machine

The filter feeding state can be the main state, such as tunicate ascidians committing to sessile filter feeding as adults. Since adult ascidians are sessile, filter feeding is the only state. The proto-vertebrate may have similarly spent almost all of its time filter feeding or resting, only moving when necessary to avoid environment hazards, or predators, or if the filter feeding is unsuccessful.

Simple filter feeding behavior.

I’ve distinguished the avoiding path from the give-up path because they have very different internal logic. Avoidance is driven by external senses, but giving up is internal, comparing expected food intake with the actual eating results. Because an initial sampling phase does not yet generate nutrients, the system must sustain the sampling phase even without feeding back, but it must also timeout eventually if the feeding place is unsuccessful.

Opioids as suppressing search

The opioid peptides and receptors are a vertebrate novelty. Neither amphioxus nor tunicates show either the opioids or their receptors, and invertebrates also lack these [Dreborg et al 2008], [Huang et al 2022]. The four opioid peptides and receptors (pomc with MOR, penk with DOR, pdyn with KOR, pnoc with NOR) exist in all vertebrates and likely divided from a single opioid paired with a single receptor [Larhammar et al 2015], [Stevens 2009] during the two whole genome duplication events between tunicates and vertebrates [Dreborg et al 2008].

In mammals the MOR.i receptor exists across the entire brain [Le Merrer et al 2009] and is broadcast in ventricle CSF (cortical spinal fluid) [Veening et al 2012] and the bloodstream through the pituitary [Veening et al 2012]. However, the matching opioid β-endorphin is only produced in three places, H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate nucleus), H.pit (pituitary gland), R.nst (nucleus of the solitary tract in hindbrain). Before the genome duplication events, the proto-vertebrate likely had only a single opioid and paired receptor. The timing for β-endorphin is seconds to minutes in CSF and 30 minutes or more for peripheral [Veening et al 2012].

For the purposes of filter feeding, I think it’s reasonable to treat proto-vertebrate MOR as mainly through CSF with a relatively long time of minutes to an hour. Because the proto-vertebrate brain would have been smaller, many or most of brain areas would be adjacent to the CSF [Vígh et al 2004] and might use MOR as a broadcast peptide.

Many locomotor regions are inhibited by eating and often have MOR.i receptors. H.sum (supramammillary nucleus) is associated with movement, exploration, and avoidance and is suppressed while eating. Subsets of H.l.g (lateral hypothalamus gaba neurons) sensitive to leptin (a fat-sensing satiation peptide) is suppressed while eating [Petzold et al 2023]. H.l.ox (lateral hypothalamus orexin area) is associated with arousal and seeking and is suppressed while eating. H.arc AgRP (arcuate with AgRP peptide) is active before feeding, associated with hunter, and suppressed at contact with food [Altafi et al 2024]. V.lc (locus coerulus – noradrenaline source) is suppressed during mammal licking [Fan W et al 2024]. S.v (ventral striatum) is inhibited while eating and inhibiting S.v increases eating. H.l may be a central node in the transition between seeking and eating [Kongstorp et al 2025]. Food presentation suppresses R.pb CGRP (parabrachial nucleus CGRP alarm peptide) [Carter et al 2013].

Roaming drive from H.arc AgRP/NPY

A voluntary search for food needs to be driven by some specific process. While hunger is a driving force, the circadian rhythm seems to be the primary driver, modulated by hunger [Sayar-Atasoy et al 2023]. In the mammal hypothalamus, H.scn (suprachiasmatic nucleus) is the main circadian driver, with H.dm (dorsomedial hypothalamic nucleus) and H.l orexin as other important nodes. For the hunger circuit, circadian drives the hunger circuits in H.arc and H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus). These circadian and hunger systems drive roaming circuits in H.l and eating circuits in R.pb.

Circadian and hunger circuit driving food search and eating. Nuclei above are loosely grouped into circadian, hunger, roaming food search, and eating circuits. H.arc.agrp (arcuate hypothalamus), H.dm (dorsomedial hypothalamus), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.scn (suprachiasmatic nucleus), H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), R.pb.l (lateral parabrachial nucleus), R.nst (nucleus of the solitary tract).

The above diagram shows major nodes in the circadian, hunger, roaming food search, and eating circuits. The H.l subarea corresponds to the DLR, driving R1.a (anterior hindbrain) roaming. R.pb.l (lateral parabrachial nucleus) is a key hindbrain nucleus for managing feeding and alarm. R1.a essentially implements the roaming random walk search for food. R.nst is a key hindbrain eating nucleus.

Roaming and DLR

Roaming needs locomotor circuitry because it’s a locomotor action. The DLR (diencephalon motor region) and MLR (midbrain locomotor region) are locomotor areas above the hindbrain that exist in all vertebrates, including the lamprey [Ménard and Grillner 2008], [Robertson et al 2014]. Although the MLR is well-studied, less is known about the DLR. MLR is strongly driven by OT (optic tectum) [Kim LH et al 2017], and basal ganglia, and may be part of an olfactory seek path in lamprey that does not use DLR [Derjean et al 2018]. In mammals, DLR appears be be in H.l.p (posterior H.l), directly driving R1.a (anterior hindbrain, pontine oralis area) [Ji C et al 2024] with a possible corresponding locomotor region for zebrafish in H.v (ventral hypothalamus) [Farrell et al 2021]. The following diagram shows potential related areas and connectivity with H.l.p as DLR.

Possible connectivity with posterior lateral hypothalamus as the DLR. DLR (diencephalon motor region), H.l.p (posterior lateral hypothalamus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), Po.l (lateral preoptic area), P.ms (median septum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain, locomotor).

Exploration is associated with several highly interconnected regions, including H.sum (supramammillary nucleus) [Farrell et al 2021], P.ms (median septum) [Köhler and Srebro 1980], [Kuhn et al 2024], [Mocellin and Mikulovic 2021], Po.l (lateral preoptic area) [Subramanian et al 2018], and H.l [Altafi et al 2024]. I’m interpreting exploration as roaming food search, but “exploration” is often used in distinct and specialized contexts, such as information gathering. These exploration areas are also associated with RTPA (real-time place avoidance), such as the H.sum projections to Po.l [Escobedo et al 2023]. P.ms projections to Hb.l are RTPA, but P.ms projections to Po.l are locomotive without avoidance [Zhang GW et al 2018]. Although it’s possible that Po.l is strictly an avoidance node, which would not help this essay’s need for roaming, it’s also possible that sub-circuits within Po.l, P.ms, and H.sum are dedicated to avoidance, while others are used for roaming. For example, one study shows H.sum to Po.l as strictly avoidance [Escobedo et al 2023], while another shows H.sum tac1 (substance P) as correlated with all voluntary locomotion, not only avoidance [Farrell et al 2021].

P.ms may be particularly important for roaming as an integrator of spatial information and food drive [Tsanov 2022]. For the DLR, H.sum, H.pv and Poa stimulation all produce locomotion, but these areas require P.ms [Fuhrman et al 2015]. Some of these studies suggest that P.msdb.glu to Vta produces locomotion, which would be more to the seek circuit than for roaming. P.ms.glu activity sustains for several seconds after the stimulation ends, likely from intrinsic neuron mechanisms, because blocking internal neurotransmission does not curtail the sustained activity [Korvasová et al 2021].

Timing issues with giving up

As discussed in essay 38, a circuit for giving up on a feeding place conflicts with the circuit for starting feeding, because both have a shared threshold for giving up. The animal gives up on a feeding place if it isn’t receiving nutrients, but when it starts eating, it also doesn’t receive any nutrients. In particularly, filter feeding has a long delay between starting to feed and nutrients in the gut, as opposed to relatively quick feeding for mammals. The MOR.i receptor might manage successful feeding, but β-endorphin might be released only after minutes. To solve this dilemma, some mechanisms is necessary to spend enough time sampling the new place before giving up one it.

Bridging sustain with startup enthusiasm for a give-up time.
Illustration of the need for starting enthusiasm before long-term sustained gut nutrients are available.

The above graph shows the difficulty. The horizontal dotted line represents the threshold for giving up. When feeding starts, the received nutrients are below the threshold at zero. A naive implementation would immediately give up. Successful feeding has a delay (1 minute here) before its signal for MOR.i is available. To give the potential feeding place a chance, the animal either needs to be actively stopped with a starting enthusiasm period, or stopped for resting. Because filter-feeding and resting are essentially identical for the proto-vertebrate, a resting stop could be sufficient without needing a starting enthusiasm system.

Taste and dopamine is a possible intermediate to give time for MOR to kick in. If the animal tastes food in the filter-feeding branchial arches before the food is digested, that early signal could trigger dopamine to extend a food-zone waiting period and allow filter feeding to continue. This temporary dopamine signal might habituate relatively quickly to avoid perseveration. In mammals, Vta dopamine extends eating rich food [Zhu Z et al 2025].

Food-zone stopping

Essay 38 covered the H.l support for food zone from [Jennings et al 2015]. The core of the food zone is food odor. The ascidian larva has a simple odor and tactile circuit in the ascidian palps that help decide where the larva should settle. The genetic transcription factors for ascidian palps are similar to the vertebrate forebrain, specifically foxg1, which marks the vertebrate forebrain [Cao C et al 2019]. Looking at the vertebrate circuit, the path from Ob (olfactory bulb) to S.ot (olfactory tubercle) to Pv (ventral pallidum) to H.l can serve the food zone function.

Potential food-zone circuit for stopping in a likely filter-feeding spot. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Ob (olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), S.ot (olfactory tubercle).

From [Bernat et al 2024], the S.ot to P.v to H.l path is the main S.ot path through P.v. Let’s consider this as the food-zone stop circuit. When the animal senses a food odor, the S.ot to H.l circuit will activate, detecting a food zone, which drives the animal to stop roaming and settle for feeding.

Importantly, S.o has the same adenosine timeout capability as the rest of the striatum, with A2a. (adenosine Gs receptor) and penk (enkephalin) marking the timeout indirect path. Enkephaline is the opioid ligand for DOR.i, but it also activates MOR.i, which is expressed in Pv [Neuhofer and Kalivas 2023], [Le Merrer et al 2009] and increases eating. This A2a.i and DOR.i circuit is the transition marker for the state machine above.

A dopamine taste signal might extend the food zone timeout [Zhu Z et al 2025]. The S.ot adenosine timeout neuron has a D2.i (dopamine Gi inhibitory) receptor, which inhibits the timeout without suppressing it entirely, essentially extending it.

Roaming timeout as filter-feeding sample

Anther possibly simpler sampling strategy is to use resting as a sampling phase. The roaming action itself could time out after a few minutes, resting for another few minutes before starting roaming again. In rodents the locomotion bouts are fairly short. Obviously, rodents are not filter feeders, but a proto-vertebrate filter-feeder could use a similar roaming-resting rhythm to periodically sample potential feeding zones without needing any odor place-detection circuit.

Roaming with timeout. H.l is the main roaming circuit. The S.sh and Pv loop is a timeout circuit to curtail roaming time. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Pv (ventral pallidum), R1.a (anterior hindbrain), S.sh (ventral striatum shell).

The above circuit shows roaming driven by H.l with a timeout circuit suing S.sh (ventral striatum shell) and Pv. As in the odor timeout, roaming uses an A2a.s circuit as a timeout, with a time of a few minutes. Because filter feeding and resting are essentially equivalent, this resting phase can find a feeding spot without explicitly detecting a food zone.

Simulation

The simulation roughly follows the circuits outlines above, centered on H.l as a roaming driver. The main change from previous essays is in HypMove which represents H.l. This essay simplifies H.l, because H.l has almost no internal connections [Burdakov et al 2020], mantling that HypMove needs to essentially implement a single neural layer. It can combine the main circadian driver with hunger and suppressive elements like FoodZone or a morphine suppressor from HypEat, where the animal shouldn’t move if it’s successfully filter feeding. H.l has strong MOR.i, which can inhibit the driving hunger signal. H.l uses a timeout with a S.msh model in RoamTimeout to timeout the roaming. This timeout produces a periodic rest time while the timeout recovers, which then defaults to filter feeding.

Block diagram of the major feeding modules of the simulation. HypMove is the central node. It combines information from several sources to produce a roam-drive signal to HindMove.

The above diagram shows the roaming sub circuit, focused on HypMove. FoodZone is equivalent to S.ot in this simulation, while in mammals the food zone likely includes S.ls (lateral septum), S.v (ventral striatum), and P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis). HypEat is equivalent to the morphine and satiation circuits, which includes H.arc and H.pv, but also includes broadcast feeding receptors like leptin and glucose receptors that are on H.l neurons directly without needing separate interoception neurons.

HypMove roaming drives HindMove, the R1.a model. As in the DLR H.l to R1.a connection, this connection is slow (~1s) and weak in HindMove and can be overridden by essentially anything else in the hindbrain.

Filter feeding is likewise weak and not driven by upstream modules outside of the hindbrain. This passive eating without higher control is unlike mammal eating. HindEat is not driven by hypothalamus or forebrain inputs. If the animal has stopped moving, the hindbrain will start filter feeding after a short time (~1s). If the filter feeding is successful, gut nutrients will trigger MOR release in HypEat, which will continue to suppress roaming.

Screenshot showing the animal paused while filter feeding.

The above screenshot shows the animal stopped in a food zone (the teal stars), eating and receiving gut nutrient feedback, which drives MOR to suppress roaming.

References

Altafi, M., Chen, C., Korotkova, T. and Ponomarenko, A., 2024. Sequential activation of lateral hypothalamic neuronal populations during feeding and their assembly by gamma oscillations. Journal of Neuroscience, 44(43).

Bernat, N., Campbell, R.R., Nam, H., Basu, M., Odesser, T., Elyasaf, G., Engeln, M., Chandra, R., Golden, S., Ament, S. and Lobo, M.K., 2024. Multimodal interrogation of ventral pallidum projections reveals projection-specific signatures and effects on cocaine reward. Journal of Neuroscience, 44(18).

Cao C, Lemaire LA, Wang W, Yoon PH, Choi YA, Parsons LR, Matese JC, Wang W, Levine M, Chen K. Comprehensive single-cell transcriptome lineages of a proto-vertebrate. Nature. 2019 Jul;571(7765):349-354. 

Carter ME, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD. Genetic identification of a neural circuit that suppresses appetite. Nature. 2013 Nov 7;503(7474):111-4. 

Chung J, Newman-Smith E, Kourakis MJ, Miao Y, Borba C, Medina J, Laurent T, Gallean B, Faure E, Smith WC. A single oscillating proto-hypothalamic neuron gates taxis behavior in the primitive chordate Ciona. Curr Biol. 2023 Aug 21;33(16):3360-3370.e4. 

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567. 

Dreborg, S., Sundström, G., Larsson, T.A. and Larhammar, D., 2008. Evolution of vertebrate opioid receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(40), pp.15487-15492.

Escobedo Abraham, Holloway Salli-Ann, Votoupal Megan, Cone Aaron L, Skelton Hannah E, Legaria Alex A., Ndiokho Imeh, Floyd Tasheia, Kravitz Alexxai V., Bruchas Michael R., Norris Aaron J. (2023) Glutamatergic Supramammillary Nucleus Neurons Respond to Threatening Stressors and Promote Active Coping eLife 12:RP90972

Fan, W., Engborg, C.B. and Sciolino, N.R., 2024. Locus Ceruleus Dynamics Are Suppressed during Licking and Enhanced Postlicking Independent of Taste Novelty. Eneuro, 11(4).

Farrell JS, Lovett-Barron M, Klein PM, Sparks FT, Gschwind T, Ortiz AL, Ahanonu B, Bradbury S, Terada S, Oijala M, Hwaun E, Dudok B, Szabo G, Schnitzer MJ, Deisseroth K, Losonczy A, Soltesz I. Supramammillary regulation of locomotion and hippocampal activity. Science. 2021 Dec 17;374(6574):1492-1496. 

Fuhrmann, F., Justus, D., Sosulina, L., Kaneko, H., Beutel, T., Friedrichs, D., Schoch, S., Schwarz, M.K., Fuhrmann, M. and Remy, S., 2015. Locomotion, theta oscillations, and the speed-correlated firing of hippocampal neurons are controlled by a medial septal glutamatergic circuit. Neuron, 86(5), pp.1253-1264.

Huang, A.Y., Taylor, A.M., Ghogha, A., Pribadi, M., Wang, Q., Kim, T.S., Cahill, C.M., Coppola, G. and Evans, C.J., 2022. Genetic and functional analysis of a Pacific hagfish opioid system. Journal of neuroscience research, 100(1), pp.19-34.

Jennings JH, Ung RL, Resendez SL, Stamatakis AM, Taylor JG, Huang J, Veleta K, Kantak PA, Aita M, Shilling-Scrivo K, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Otte S, Stuber GD. Visualizing hypothalamic network dynamics for appetitive and consummatory behaviors. Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):516-27.

Ji, C., Zhang, Y., Lin, Z., Zhao, Z., Jiao, Z., Zheng, Z., Shi, X., Wang, X., Li, Z., Yu, S. and Qu, Y., 2024. Activation of hypothalamic-pontine-spinal pathway promotes locomotor initiation and functional recovery after spinal cord injury in mice. bioRxiv, pp.2024-11.

Kim LH, Sharma S, Sharples SA, Mayr KA, Kwok CHT, Whelan PJ. Integration of Descending Command Systems for the Generation of Context-Specific Locomotor Behaviors. Front Neurosci. 2017 Oct 18;11:581. 

Kongstorp, M., Karnani, M.M. and McCutcheon, J.E., 2025. Does the lateral hypothalamus govern the transition between appetitive and consummatory feeding?. Neuropharmacology, p.110438.

Korvasová, K., Ludwig, F., Kaneko, H., Sosulina, L., Tetzlaff, T., Remy, S. and Mikulovic, S., 2021. Locomotion induced by medial septal glutamatergic neurons is linked to intrinsically generated persistent firing. bioRxiv, pp.2021-04.

Köhler, C. and Srebro, B., 1980. Effects of lateral and medial septal lesions on exploratory behavior in the albino rat. Brain Research, 182(2), pp.423-440.

Kuhn, F., Mocellin, P., Pupe, S., Wang, L., Lemire, A.L., Sosulina, L., Barnstedt, O., Spruston, N., Cembrowski, M.S. and Remy, S., 2024. Neuronal heterogeneity in the medial septum and diagonal band of Broca: classes and continua. bioRxiv, pp.2024-08.

Larhammar, D., Bergqvist, C. and Sundström, G., 2015. Ancestral vertebrate complexity of the opioid system. Vitamins & Hormones, 97, pp.95-122.

Le Merrer J, Becker JA, Befort K, Kieffer BL. Reward processing by the opioid system in the brain. Physiol Rev. 2009 Oct;89(4):1379-412.

Li S, Wang F. Vertebrate Evolution Conserves Hindbrain Circuits despite Diverse Feeding and Breathing Modes. eNeuro. 2021 Apr 28;8(2):ENEURO.0435-20.2021.

Mallatt, J., 2008. The origin of the vertebrate jaw: neoclassical ideas versus newer, development-based ideas. Zoological science, 25(10), pp.990-998.

Ménard A, Grillner S. Diencephalic locomotor region in the lamprey–afferents and efferent control. J Neurophysiol. 2008 Sep;100(3):1343-53. 

Mocellin P, Mikulovic S. The Role of the Medial Septum-Associated Networks in Controlling Locomotion and Motivation to Move. Front Neural Circuits. 2021 Jul 22;15:699798.

Neuhofer, D. and Kalivas, P., 2023. Differential modulation of GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons in the ventral pallidum by GABA and neuropeptides. Eneuro, 10(7).

Petzold A, van den Munkhof HE, Figge-Schlensok R, Korotkova T. Complementary lateral hypothalamic populations resist hunger pressure to balance nutritional and social needs. Cell Metab. 2023 Mar 7;35(3):456-471.e6. 

Robertson B, Kardamakis A, Capantini L, Pérez-Fernández J, Suryanarayana SM, Wallén P, Stephenson-Jones M, Grillner S. The lamprey blueprint of the mammalian nervous system. Prog Brain Res. 2014;212:337-49.

Stevens, C.W., 2009. The evolution of vertebrate opioid receptors. Frontiers in bioscience: a journal and virtual library, 14, p.1247.

Subramanian, S., Reichard, R.A., Stevenson, H.S., Schwartz, Z.M., Parsley, K.P. and Zahm, D.S., 2018. Lateral preoptic and ventral pallidal roles in locomotion and other movements. Brain Structure and Function, 223, pp.2907-2924.

Tsanov, M., 2022. Basal forebrain impairment: understanding the mnemonic function of the septal region translates in therapeutic advances. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 16, p.916499.

Veening JG, Gerrits PO, Barendregt HP. Volume transmission of beta-endorphin via the cerebrospinal fluid; a review. Fluids Barriers CNS. 2012 Aug 10;9(1):16. 

Vígh B, Manzano e Silva MJ, Frank CL, Vincze C, Czirok SJ, Szabó A, Lukáts A, Szél A. The system of cerebrospinal fluid-contacting neurons. Its supposed role in the nonsynaptic signal transmission of the brain. Histol Histopathol. 2004 Apr;19(2):607-28. 

Zhang GW, Shen L, Zhong W, Xiong Y, Zhang LI, Tao HW. Transforming Sensory Cues into Aversive Emotion via Septal-Habenular Pathway. Neuron. 2018 Sep 5;99(5):1016-1028.e5. 

Zhu Z, Gong R, Rodriguez V, Quach KT, Chen X, Sternson SM. Hedonic eating is controlled by dopamine neurons that oppose GLP-1R satiety. Science. 2025 Mar 28;387(6741):eadt0773. 

Essay 39: Food Zone

H.l (lateral hypothalamus) is a key node in the foraging system and has an interesting capability of distinguishing a food zone from a non-food zone [Jennings et al 2015]. In a sense foraging is searching for a food zone and then eating.

Foraging as a state machine.

The above diagram shows the foraging phases that I’ve already covered in earlier essays. Importantly, each phase is an independent action path as part of a distributed system, not merely a state in a state machine. To force the separate action paths to act like a state machine, each transition needs to suppress the preceding and following state. In particular the eating phase needs to inhibit the seeking system. This lateral inhibition is important because circuitry is required to force activation of only a single system at a time.

The food zone is particularly interesting for filter feeding, which is naturally area based and long term, as opposed to snapping up a morsel of food. Non-vertebrate chordates are filter feeders, lamprey larvae are filter feeders, and early jawless vertebrates were also likely filter feeders [D’Aniello et al 2023]. Tunicate ascidians, the closest non-vertebrate chordates, have an extreme version of this foraging loop, where the tadpoles find a feeding place after swimming for 12 hours and then settling in place for their adult life [Anselmi et al 2024]. The ascidian foraging state marine is a straight line that ends in the eating phase in the food zone, not continuing in a loop. The ascidian search and settle might give a hint how the vertebrate foraging circuitry is organized.

Ascidians

As covered in essay 30, the ascidian larva nervous system has several seeking (taxis) systems: geotaxis (gravity avoidance – moving up), phototaxis (light avoidance), and dimming for predator and obstacle avoidance. Ascidian navigation disperses the larva from its parent and prefers to settle on the underside of ledges by avoiding gravity while avoiding light. Its settling sensors also avoid toxic or irritating areas and may try to find food-friendly areas, although the specific sensor capabilities aren’t well known. When the larva finds an appropriate place, around 14 hours after hatching, it settles for life [Hoyer et al 2024].

Functional organization of the ascidian larva navigation and settling circuit.

The above diagram is a functional representation of the ascidian larva navigation brain. For this essay the important part is the palp and food-zone sensor and the settling neurons that inhibit motor neurons. The palms are three tentacle-like protrusions from the larva head, which attach the ascidian to a rock with cement glands [Johnson et al 2024]. They contain chemosensory and mechanosensors that distinguish the settling zone from non-settling zones [Hoyer et al 2024]. Interestingly, the genetic markers for the palp neurons are similar to markers for the vertebrate forebrain.

Head cement glands still exist in some fish larvae [Pottin et al 2010] and most frog tadpoles [Nokhbatolfoghahai and Downie 2005], [Rétaux and Pottin 2011], [Sive and Bradley 1996]. Frog tadpoles will swim up and attach to the underside of leaves or to the water surface. This cement gland and settling system may have existed in the pre-vertebrate ancestor and shared for tunicates and vertebrates. Unlike the ascidians the pre-vertebrates likely did not permanently settle. For the sake of this essay, let’s assume they temporarily settled to filter feed in a location and only moved on if filter feeding was unsuccessful or if forced to move by predators, competitors, or environmental hazards.

Ascidian larva navigation and palp settling circuit with the settling circuit highlighted. Each of the boxes represents a single neuron or a small (5-10) group of neurons. Labels are neuron names.

The above diagram shows specific neurons in the ascidian larva brain. The importance here is the glutamate pnIN (palp interneuron) to GABA pnRN (palp relay neuron), which inhibits all motor neurons and interneurons. Comparing vertebrate and ascidian neural systems is sketchy and probably should be avoided because both have diverged [Holland 2016]. For this essay, I’ll ignore that sound advice to try to motivate part of the vertebrate nervous system.

H.stn as an analogous node to the settling neurons. H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), Ob (olfactory bulb), OT (optic tectum), P.v (ventral pallidum), R.rs (reticulospinal motor command), S.v (ventral striatum), S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), V.pt (posterior tubuculum)

The above diagram shows the H.stn (subthalamic nucleus) as fulfilling a similar role as the pnIN from ascidian Ciona, suppressing seek in preparation for eating. Part of P.v (ventral pallidum) suppresses S.v (ventral striatum) during eating [Vachez et al 2021]. This P.v “arkypallidal” subset is named after similar neurons in P.ge (globus pallidus) that suppresses S.d (dorsal striatum). Although the driver of this eating suppression isn’t known, the timing of the arkypallidal activation closely matches V.dr serotonin food activation [Spring and Nautiyal 2024], ramping at the end of seek and peaking after eating. Also, H.stn and P.ge form an oscillating pair, evident in Parkinson’s disease. So, it’s plausible that H.stn drives persistent suppression of the seek path in S.v through its projection to P.v, possibly influenced or driven by V.dr (dorsal raphe, serotonin). This specific path is speculation but seems compatible with experiments. The second suppression path is the well-known H.stn to S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata) that suppresses motor activity. Snr has a widespread suppression or MLR (midbrain locomotor region), R.rs (reticulospinal motor command), and Snr suppresses Snc (substantia nigra parsa compacta dopamine). Note that the medial H.stn, the area connected with P.v, merges with H.l with minimal boundary [Haynes and Haber 2013].

Food zone

Let’s return to the H.l food zone in [Jennings et al 2015] and consider where the food zone information might come from. Following [Jacobs 2012], let’s treat olfaction as the central sense for navigation, which is particularly compelling for food zones.

The diagram below shows the H.l main connectivity. Not displayed is the H.l internal sensing of nutrient information peptides like glucose sensing and leptin fat sensing. H.l doesn’t receive direct sensory input with the exception of R.pb (parabrachial nucleus), which sends nociceptive information like itch or pain. Because an itchy or painful place is a poor choice for filter feeding, this R.pb input is negative place information for a filter-feeding zone, but R.pb doesn’t give positive reasons to stay like food odors.

H.l connectivity encompasses much of the limbic system, driven by olfactory information. A.bl (basolateral amygdala), E.hc (hippocampus), F.pfc (prefrontal cortex), H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), Hb.l (lateral habenula), M.pag (periaqueductal gray), Ob (olfactory bulb), O.pir (piriform cortex), P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis), P.v (ventral pallidum), R.pb (parabrachial), S.a (central amygdala), S.ls (lateral striatum), S.v (ventral striatum), V.dr (dorsal raphe – serotonin), Vta (ventral tegmental area – dopamine)

As the diagram suggests, the information H.l receives about food sources is very abstract. It receives cue information from A.bl (basolateral amygdala), place information from E.hc (hippocampal complex), value-like information from F.ofc (orbitofrontal cortex) and task-like information from F.vm (ventromedial prefrontal cortex). All of those areas are strongly connected with the olfactory system. While H.l doesn’t receive odor place information directly from sensors, it receives multiple organizational perspectives on odor information. P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis) receives very similar olfactory input as H.l, and it also receives negative information from R.pb. However, R.pb sends different nociceptive information to the S.a (central amygdala)/P.bst extended amygdala than it sends to H.l [Arthurs et al 2023]. The R.pb projections to H.l compared to S.a/P.bst are not redundant.

Not only are the H.l inputs abstract, but the outputs are also abstract, in contrast to direct action paths. This abstraction might be a later evolutionary development, similar to V.pt (posterior tuberculum) in zebrafish. V.pt is roughly homologous to Vta (ventral tegmental area) in mammals, but V.pt has more direct locomotor output to MLR (midbrain locomotor region), while most of Vta’s output is generally abstract.

As a note, the diagram does not include H.l ox (orexin) or H.l mch (melanin-concentrating hormone), partially for simplicity and partially because the zebrafish H.l is distinct from the ox and mch populations, suggesting that the mammalian ox and mch areas of H.l can be separated from the rest of H.l function. The diagram also omits some other connections like Ppt (pedunculopontine nucleus).

Food and serotonin

Returning to the foraging state diagram, it’s important that each “state” is a large, distributed, complex system, not a state in a state machine. The seek state includes areas like S.v, Vta, H.l, E.hc, F.pfc, and the motor regions MLR and R.rs (reticulospinal motor command) with the help of cortical areas and can include OT (optic tectum). Although the eating state is small, it is still comprised of many areas, including V.dr (dorsal raphe), OT.d, R.my.irt (medulla eating), H.l, H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), R.pb and possibly some Vta and S.v subareas. Although the system is not a state machine, each “state” needs to laterally suppress the other systems to prevent multiple action paths from colliding.

Foraging state machine with dopamine and serotonin modulation. DA (dopamine), V.dr (dorsal raphe), Vta ventral tegmental area, 5HT (serotonin).

The split between eat and seek is important, because many studies merge the behavior into a general category “feeding.” Because some experiments only measure total feeding, it can be difficult to distinguish whether the experiment is measuring a seek effect or an eating effect. For example, eating needs to suppress seek to keep the animal from wandering away from the food. If an experiment stimulates eat but inhibits seek, the animal might not search for food even if it’s ready to eat. If it doesn’t seek food, it doesn’t find food.

This distinction between eating and seeking is exhibited by the question of serotonin, which is a heterogeneous system that has a role in feeding. The serotonin from V.dr is a heterogenous system with V.dr having at least 14 different genetic clusters [Okaty et al 2020] with at least 11 different projection patterns [Ren et al 2014]. Earlier studies noted that 30% of V.dr were active during eating [Fornal et al 1996], and many others have noted V.dr being active for “reward” (eating).

Suppose one component of V.dr serotonin encourages eating while discouraging seeking. If an experiment floods the brain with serotonin, it might see total feeding drop because serotonin suppresses seeking food, even if it encourages long meals when it finds food. The confusion becomes greater for studies looking for the even more abstract “reward” as opposed to concrete eating. The point being that serotonin in particular is a complicated system, not reducible to a single value or function.

Eating related effects of serotonin. DA (dopamine), H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), P.v (ventral pallidum), S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), V.dr (dorsal raphe), Vta (ventral tegmental area), Vta.g (GABA neurons of Vta), 5HT (serotonin)

The above diagram shows some of the eating-related projections. Only a few of the 14 V.dr subtypes are know. The V.dr to Vta connection is one of the known projections and drives the seek system [Courtiol et al 2021], [Wang HL et al 2019]. Unfortunately, the other projections are not known, in particular the 30% of V.dr that is active while eating [Bromberg-Martin et al 2010].

V.dr enhances satiety with 5HT2c.q (serotonin G-q stimulating receptor) in H.arc POME satiety neurons, which suppresses the AgRP hunger peptide. Note that AgRP drops just before eating, suggesting that it’s a seek-promoting system, but an eating-promoting system [Bhave and Nettow 2021]. The prediction suppression only occurs after training and V.dr serotonin shows inverse behavior, possibly suggesting V.dr as suppressing H.arc. Untrained V.dr serotonin only responds after tasting [Li et al 2016], but trained V.dr serotonin responds about 2 seconds before eating [Zhong et al 2016].

Filter feeding and foraging theory

Let’s the consider filter feeding using foraging theory. Foraging theory studies how animals browse patches of food, such as a cluster of flowers for a bee or worms in pine cones for birds [Krebs et al 1974] or a hunting spot for a predator. In particular, foraging theory considers how long the animal should stay at a particular patch before deciding to move on: measuring the give up time. A filter-feeding proto-vertebrate needs to decide if the current food rate is good enough to stay at the current food zone.

The MVT (marginal value theorem) suggests that an animal should move on if the current patch has less food than the environment average [Charnov 1976]. MVT has simplifying assumptions that are challenged by the complexity in the world [Pyke 1984], [Wajnberg et al 2006]. MVT assumptions include omniscience, immortality, determinism, no competition, no predation, and no hunger. Some of those complexities are important to the essay, particularly the omniscience. In MVT the animal knows the average environment food value, but this omniscience isn’t plausible for simple animals [Tenhumberg et al 2001], and the essay animal has almost no learning at all. Realistic search is stochastic and can fail, such as a predator hunting, which is particularly important if the animal is starving. Starvation and satiation are also not covered by the MVT. If the animal is starving, it might stick with a non-optimal, low quality food source below the environment average because not finding a better patch is too risky. Simple organisms use rules of thumb instead of complex strategy, and even birds seem to use a constant give up time [Krebs et al 1974].

As a side note, the foraging terms for eating (“exploiting”) and searching for a new patch (“exploring”) have been appropriated by RL (reinforcement learning) [Sutton and Barto 2018] with some differences in meaning. Reinforcement learning use an n-armed bandit (gambling slot machine) model, where exploring means finding the reward rates of the other arms before deciding on the best arm to exploit. The RL focus is on gather information, generally in a finite and persistent system. In contrast, this essay uses the original foraging terminology.

Covered in essay 36, vertebrate food motivation divides into hunger-driven (“homeostatic”) and opportunistic (“hedonic”) foraging. These form two levels of search and involve different circuits with some overlap. When no longer hungry, mice will not eat plain food but will still eat rich food. In terms of foraging theory, hungry mice will stay longer at poor patches, while sated mice will leave more quickly.

Simulation complexity

After starting to implement the simulation, the issue of complication became overwhelming. Specifically, adding the striatum is too complicated. Consider the issue of distinguishing the eating function of dopamine vs serotonin, when both are responsive to eating food. That similarity makes it difficult to find the system function. The system must have developed from a simpler system because the ascidian feeding or amphioxus feeding is not overly complicated. For the sake of the simulation, I’m backing off and considering only the hindbrain and hypothalamus systems, treating the striatum as a later enhancement.

Hypothalamus and raphe nuclei

The core of the simulation is the pair of H.l and V.dr. As mentioned above, H.l is driven by food zone indicators and can drive both seeking and eating. V.dr is responsive to eating and as part of the hindbrain (it derives from r1) it is a good candidate for primitive, tunicate-like filter feeding circuitry.

Simulation eating model. Ob and H.l form the forebrain food zone system, while V.dr and R.nts form the hindbrain eating system. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Ob (olfactory bulb), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), V.dr (dorsal raphe).

The diagram above is a simplification, where the Ob to H.l connection represents an ancient version of the food zone system. The V.dr to R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract) connection includes more hindbrain structures such as medulla eating circuits. The simplification has H.l as a food zone controller and V.dr as an eating sustaining manager.

Although V.dr is a serotonin system, not V.dr neurons are non-serotonin, both glutamate and GABA. As mentioned above the V.dr and V.mr (median raphe) serotonin neurons have at least 11-14 distinct neuron types and projection types. For the essay I’m assuming at least one serotonin neuron type is a measure of eating food. In the simulation successful filter feeding increases the serotonin for eating.

Start and sustain

Let’s return to foraging, where the central decision is when to stop exploiting a patch if it’s not effective. Consider a simple where the animal gives up on a patch if the feeding rate drops below a fixed threshold. Filter feeding naturally has delays between starting filter feeding, trapping some prey, and later receiving nutrients in the gut. This raises a problem: the feeding rate is zero until some food is digested, which implies the animal should give up immediately.

Foraging give-up occurs when the combination of a start signal and sustain signal drop below a threshold.

One solution is to prime the system with a start signal. While the start signal exists, the animal won’t leave even if it hasn’t digested any nutrients. In the simulation H.l is responsible for the start signal and V.dr is responsible for both the sustain and for integrating the two systems. The H.l start signal comes from the food zone detection.

However, the start signal raises a new issue because the start signal must stop to allow sustain to act as the primary decision variable. If H.l always sends the food zone signal to V.dr, it will remain active as long as the animal is in the food zone, preventing the animal from leaving the zone. So, H.l itself needs a timeout. The simulation uses a striatum timeout to disable the H.l food zone signal. The striatum connection can either represent the striatum layer between the olfactory and cortical layers and H.l, or it can represent H.l reciprocal input to the striatum.

The start timeout has the same issues as other striatum systems. Specifically, it needs to remain timed out until the animal leaves the food zone.

Simulation

The screenshot below shows the animal feeding from a low-quality food zone. The grey star is a food zone (grey represents poor food). The nearby purple checkerboard is an avoidance zone, representing an aversive area such as itch or high carbon dioxide.

Simulation of the animal filter feeding at a poor food zone just before giving up.

In the screenshot the startup signal from H.l is temporarily sustaining feeding. It will soon timeout and the animal will abandon the food zone.

Avoidance response and search

The simulation adds two other serotonin-based systems: one for avoiding toxic areas and one for search. Avoidance is one of the V.mr functions. The search serotonin represents the V.dr to Vta connection, despite the current essay disabling the seek function. These two functions may not be serotonin functions because V.mr avoidance is largely non-serotonin, and the V.dr to Vta connection is primarily glutamate. Because the avoidance and search are not the primary focus of the essay, I’m putting off the question of accuracy to a later essay.

Discussion

The essay’s big questionable decision is the omission of the striatum, particularly because I’ve already used the striatum for give-up timing. For eating as opposed to seeking, one possible area appears to be S.dl.vl, which is the orobranchial, mouth area [Foster et al 2021]. Because S.dl receives late dopamine from food in the gut, it might be a good candidate for filter feeding sustain.

Map of the striatum. dl (dorsal lateral striatum), dm (dorsal medial striatum), lsh (lateral shell), msh.d (dorsal medial shell), msh.v (ventral medial shell), ot (olfactory tubercle)

A second area is S.msh.d (dorsal medial shell) which responds to hedonic “liking” and drives strong eating [Castro et al 2016], [Richard and Berridge 2011], [Richard et al 2013]. S.msh.d drives H.l, which is central to the essay. In addition S.msh has longer, sustained dopamine (5-10s) contrasted with shorter dopamine in S.dl (100ms) [de Jong et al 2022].

From a motivational perspective, S.dl.vm and S.msh.d are strong candidates, but they lack the lateral inhibition of seek that’s necessary for the state machine to work. S.dl.vl also works through OT.d.l (optic tectum deep motor areas), which would add more complexity to this essay. In contrast the V.dr serotonin is already part of the hindbrain motor areas, and serotonin is already inhibitory toward seek. V.dr requires fewer additional systems to work. For future work, the two striatum areas are strong areas to research.

References

Anselmi C, Fuller GK, Stolfi A, Groves AK, Manni L. Sensory cells in tunicates: insights into mechanoreceptor evolution. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2024 Mar 14;12:1359207. 

Arthurs JW, Pauli JL, Palmiter RD. Activation of Parabrachial Tachykinin 1 Neurons Counteracts Some Behaviors Mediated by Parabrachial Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Neurons. Neuroscience. 2023 May 1;517:105-116. 

Bhave VM, Nectow AR. The dorsal raphe nucleus in the control of energy balance. Trends Neurosci. 2021 Dec;44(12):946-960.

Bromberg-Martin ES, Hikosaka O, Nakamura K. Coding of task reward value in the dorsal raphe nucleus. J Neurosci. 2010 May 5;30(18):6262-72.

Castro DC, Cole SL, Berridge KC. Lateral hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, and ventral pallidum roles in eating and hunger: interactions between homeostatic and reward circuitry. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Jun 15;9:90.

Charnov, E. L. (1976b). Optimal foraging: The marginal value theorem. Theoretical Popula- tion Biology, 9, 129–136.

Courtiol E, Menezes EC, Teixeira CM. Serotonergic regulation of the dopaminergic system: Implications for reward-related functions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Sep;128:282-293.

D’Aniello S, Bertrand S, Escriva H. Amphioxus as a model to study the evolution of development in chordates. Elife. 2023 Sep 18;12:e87028. 

de Jong JW, Fraser KM, Lammel S. Mesoaccumbal Dopamine Heterogeneity: What Do Dopamine Firing and Release Have to Do with It? Annu Rev Neurosci. 2022 Jul 8;45:109-129. 

Fornal CA, Metzler CW, Marrosu F, Ribiero-do-Valle LE, Jacobs BL. A subgroup of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons in the cat is strongly activated during oral-buccal movements. Brain Res. 1996 Apr 15;716(1-2):123-33.

Foster NN, Barry J, Korobkova L, Garcia L, Gao L, Becerra M, Sherafat Y, Peng B, Li X, Choi JH, Gou L, Zingg B, Azam S, Lo D, Khanjani N, Zhang B, Stanis J, Bowman I, Cotter K, Cao C, Yamashita S, Tugangui A, Li A, Jiang T, Jia X, Feng Z, Aquino S, Mun HS, Zhu M, Santarelli A, Benavidez NL, Song M, Dan G, Fayzullina M, Ustrell S, Boesen T, Johnson DL, Xu H, Bienkowski MS, Yang XW, Gong H, Levine MS, Wickersham I, Luo Q, Hahn JD, Lim BK, Zhang LI, Cepeda C, Hintiryan H, Dong HW. The mouse cortico-basal ganglia-thalamic network. Nature. 2021 Oct;598(7879):188-194. 

Haynes WI, Haber SN. The organization of prefrontal-subthalamic inputs in primates provides an anatomical substrate for both functional specificity and integration: implications for Basal Ganglia models and deep brain stimulation. J Neurosci. 2013 Mar 13;33(11):4804-14. 

Holland, L. Z. (2016). Tunicates. Current Biology, 26(4), R146-R152.

Hoyer J, Kolar K, Athira A, van den Burgh M, Dondorp D, Liang Z, Chatzigeorgiou M. Polymodal sensory perception drives settlement and metamorphosis of Ciona larvae. Curr Biol. 2024 Mar 25;34(6):1168-1182.e7. 

Jacobs L. F. (2012). From chemotaxis to the cognitive map: the function of olfaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109(Suppl. 1) 10693–10700 10.1073/pnas.1201880109 

Jennings JH, Ung RL, Resendez SL, Stamatakis AM, Taylor JG, Huang J, Veleta K, Kantak PA, Aita M, Shilling-Scrivo K, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Otte S, Stuber GD. Visualizing hypothalamic network dynamics for appetitive and consummatory behaviors. Cell. 2015 Jan 29;160(3):516-27. 

Johnson CJ, Razy-Krajka F, Zeng F, Piekarz KM, Biliya S, Rothbächer U, Stolfi A. Specification of distinct cell types in a sensory-adhesive organ important for metamorphosis in tunicate larvae. PLoS Biol. 2024 Mar 13;22(3):e3002555.

Krebs JR, Kacelnik TP (1978) Tests of optimal sampling by foraging great tits. Nature 275:27–31

Li Y, Zhong W, Wang D, Feng Q, Liu Z, Zhou J, Jia C, Hu F, Zeng J, Guo Q, Fu L, Luo M. Serotonin neurons in the dorsal raphe nucleus encode reward signals. Nat Commun. 2016 Jan 28;7:10503. 

Nokhbatolfoghahai M, Downie JR. Larval cement gland of frogs: comparative development and morphology. J Morphol. 2005 Mar;263(3):270-83. doi: 10.1002/jmor.10305. 

Okaty BW, Sturrock N, Escobedo Lozoya Y, Chang Y, Senft RA, Lyon KA, Alekseyenko OV, Dymecki SM. A single-cell transcriptomic and anatomic atlas of mouse dorsal raphe Pet1 neurons. Elife. 2020 Jun 22;9:e55523. 

Pottin K, Hyacinthe C, Rétaux S. Conservation, development, and function of a cement gland-like structure in the fish Astyanax mexicanus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Oct 5;107(40):17256-61. 

Pyke, G.H., 1984. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 15, pp.523-575.

Ren J, Isakova A, Friedmann D, Zeng J, Grutzner SM, Pun A, Zhao GQ, Kolluru SS, Wang R, Lin R, Li P, Li A, Raymond JL, Luo Q, Luo M, Quake SR, Luo L. Single-cell transcriptomes and whole-brain projections of serotonin neurons in the mouse dorsal and median raphe nuclei. Elife. 2019 Oct 24;8:e49424.

Rétaux S, Pottin K. A question of homology for chordate adhesive organs. Commun Integr Biol. 2011 Jan;4(1):75-7.

Richard JM, Plawecki AM, Berridge KC. Nucleus accumbens GABAergic inhibition generates intense eating and fear that resists environmental retuning and needs no local dopamine. Eur J Neurosci. 2013 Jun;37(11):1789-802. 

Richard JM, Berridge KC. Nucleus accumbens dopamine/glutamate interaction switches modes to generate desire versus dread: D(1) alone for appetitive eating but D(1) and D(2) together for fear. J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 7;31(36):12866-79.

Sive H, Bradley L. A sticky problem: the Xenopus cement gland as a paradigm for anteroposterior patterning. Dev Dyn. 1996 Mar;205(3):265-80. 

Spring MG, Nautiyal KM. Striatal Serotonin Release Signals Reward Value. J Neurosci. 2024 Oct 9;44(41):e0602242024. 

Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement learning: An introduction (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.

Tenhumberg, B., Keller, M. A. & Possingham, H. P. Using Cox’ s proportional hazard models to implement optimal strategies: an example from behavioural ecology 2. Wasp behaviour model. Behaviour 33, 597–607 (2001).

Vachez YM, Tooley JR, Abiraman K, Matikainen-Ankney B, Casey E, Earnest T, Ramos LM, Silberberg H, Godynyuk E, Uddin O, Marconi L, Le Pichon CE, Creed MC. Ventral arkypallidal neurons inhibit accumbal firing to promote reward consumption. Nat Neurosci. 2021 Mar;24(3):379-390. 

Wajnberg, E., Bernhard, P., Hamelin, F. & Boivin, G. Optimal patch time allocation for time-limited foragers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 1–10 (2006).

Wang HL, Zhang S, Qi J, Wang H, Cachope R, Mejias-Aponte CA, Gomez JA, Mateo-Semidey GE, Beaudoin GMJ, Paladini CA, Cheer JF, Morales M. Dorsal Raphe Dual Serotonin-Glutamate Neurons Drive Reward by Establishing Excitatory Synapses on VTA Mesoaccumbens Dopamine Neurons. Cell Rep. 2019 Jan 29;26(5):1128-1142.e7. 

Zhong W, Li Y, Feng Q, Luo M. Learning and Stress Shape the Reward Response Patterns of Serotonin Neurons. J Neurosci. 2017 Sep 13;37(37):8863-8875. 

Essay 37: Odor neighborhood

Let’s revisit the striatum timeout from essay 31: striatum LTD, where food seeking used the striatum as a timeout to avoid perseveration. Without the timeout, the animal continues to seek toward the odor source even if the food was missing. This essay adds to the timeout by adding an odor context as a cached set of locations to avoid until the timeout, as opposed to avoiding all locations until the timeout. This odor neighborhood resembles the olfactory spatial hypothesis [Jacobs 2012], which considers olfaction as primarily a navigation sense. The added specificity to failed-seek avoidance improves search for other nearby food sources.

Recap of essay 31: striatum LTD

The food seek logic from essay 31 has two search states: a general roaming search and an odor seek. If the odor seek times out, the animal avoids the current area to prevent perseveration. Essay 35 on hippocampal sequences explored using a sequence to specify the avoidance timeout.

Foraging state diagram with roaming and odor seeking
Foraging state machine with two search modes: a general roaming search and a target-specific seek.

For the timeout, the essay uses the Sv (ventral striatum aka nucleus accumbens) to suppress failed food seeking [Lafferty et al 2020]. Without the S.v timeout, the animal perseverates at the seek task and gets stuck in the center of the odor plume.

Striatum as timing out failed odor search.
Circuit of S.v for timing out a failed food seek. Adenosine drives a ramping timeout signal that reduces motivation by switching from the seek path via V.pt to the avoidance path via Hb.l. Ad (adenosine), Hb (habenula), Ob (olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), S.d1 (striatum projection neuron with D1 dopamine receptor), S.d2 (striatum projection neuron with D2 projection receptor), V.pt (posterior tuberculum – Vta/Snc)

The above diagram shows the essay 31 circuit, largely based on the lamprey. V.pt (posterior tuberculum) is a locomotion hub that receives a direct signal from Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb) and drives downstream motor areas [Derjean et al 2012]. Hb.l (lateral habenula) drives place avoidance. S.v (ventral striatum) drives the timeout selection in Pv (ventral pallidum). Ad (adenosine) is the timeout variable, which increases as neural activity in S.d1 (striatum D1 projection neuron) and S.d2 (striatum D2 projection neuron) continues. Adenosine is a byproduct of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) energy production, and is also a gliotransmitter from astrocytes that monitor synapse activity. Essentially, the Sv subcircuit in red acts as a timeout for the main seek circuit.

Importantly, because the essay 31 timeout only uses the seek odor itself as a key, it can’t distinguish spatially distinct odors, such as different flowers for a honeybee.

Neighborhood odor as context

Because essay 31 only used the Ob seek odor as a signal, a timeout of that odor locks out all food search for that odor. That lockout may be long because the S.d2 LTD (long term depression) recovery time is on the order of 20 to 60 minutes. Consider an analogy to a bee searching a field of flowers for nectar. If one flower is missing nectar, the bee should give up on that flower, but it shouldn’t abandon the entire task until a 60 minute timer expires.

Odor neighborhoods with food odor plumes. Each colored area is an odor neighborhood and each cloud is an odor plume. Only the starred areas contain food.

In the above diagram, the stars represent food locations and the clouds represent food odor plumes. Odor plumes without food are false odors. The colors of the regions represent odor neighborhoods, where non-food odors distinguish the areas. Suppose the animal first searches in the dark orange area and fails to find food. If it next reaches the green area with the star, the timeout from the failed orange search will block the search unless the timeout is specific to the orange neighborhood.

Olfactory spatial hypothesis

The olfactory spatial hypothesis argues that a primary function for olfaction is navigation, as opposed to simply proving identification [Jacobs 2012]. This navigation-centric idea is fleshed out in the parallel map theory, which argues that the hippocampus is primarily organized around two maps: a bearing map using gradients to distant odor landmarks, and a sketch map with local landmark cues [Jacobs and Schenk 2003]. The parallel map theory associates the distant bearing map with E.dg (dentate gyrus of the hippocampus) and the local sketch map with E.ca1 (CA1 region of the hippocampus).

The current essay uses the broad idea of the olfactory spatial hypothesis and the idea of a local olfactory neighborhood. The olfactory neighborhood provides a context to restrict the striatum timeout. Functionally it resembles the local sketch map, but it’s not strictly speaking a map, only a cache of failed locations.

Lamprey dual odor path

The lamprey is a useful animal model because it represents the older jawless vertebrates that preceded the development of the jaw and the majority of more complex vertebrates and because it has a simpler brain. In the lamprey, Ob.m directly drives locomotion via V.pt (posterior tuberculum), which is homologous to the mammalian midbrain dopamine areas Vta (ventral tegmental area) and Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta). Unlike the mammalian dopamine areas, the lamprey V.pt drives locomotion directly to MLR (midbrain locomotor region) and R.rs (reticulospinal motor neurons) [Beauséjour et al 2020].

The rest of the lamprey Ob drives the pallium (cortex) and subpallium (basal ganglia). Unlike the mammalian Ob which only drives specific olfactory cortical areas, the lamprey Ob broadly connects to the entire pallium [Derjean et al 2010], [Suryanarayana et al 2021]. Note that the lamprey pallium is smaller than the Ob [Pombal and Megías 2019].

Dual olfactory projections: direct to locomotor via V.pt and indirectly through the S.ot/P.v (basal ganglia). Hb.l (lateral habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), Ob.l (lateral olfactory bulb), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), R.rs (reticulospinal motor command), S.ot (olfactory tubercle), V.pt (posterior tuberculum)

The above diagram illustrates the dual olfactory projection. The main action path is Ob.m to the V.pt to the MLR locomotion [Derjean et al 2010], [Beauséjour et al 2020], [Beauséjour et al 2024]. Not shown is the Ob.m projection to the Hb.m (medial habenula) – R.ip (interpeduncular area) for chemotaxis. The previous essay included the Ob.m to S.ot path for the timeout, which suppressed chemotaxis to avoid perseveration. Ob.l is the new addition, providing distinguishing context to the S.ot circuit.

Striatal discrimination

To represent distinct timeouts, different context or olfactory neighborhoods need distinct neurons or at least different dendrite spines. The striatum architecture is well-suited for this task because of the very large number of S.pn (striatal projection neurons aka medium spiny neurons). Each S.pn can represent a distinct combination of signal and context.

Striatum architecture to represent multiple timeouts, each with a unique context key built from unique distinguishing combination of inputs. cxt-1 (context input), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), S.pn (striatum projection neuron).

The above diagram shows the context-keyed timeout architecture. Each S.pn is associated with a distinguishing context, but all of these use the same primary signal. Because S.pn stores the timeout in the LTP (long term potentiatiation) / LTD in its dendrite spines, the multiple S.pn neurons allow for distinct persistent timeout variables. Furthermore, a single S.pn can support multiple contexts because each S.pn has several dendrites, on the order of 8-12, each of which can respond to a distinct input combination.

Note the similarity of this fan-out to granule cells in the hippocampus and cerebellum, and the Kenyon cells in Drosophila fruit fly. This expansion of the coding dimensionality allows for a large space to place odors while reducing overlaps [Laurent 2002].

Striatum UP states

In mammals S.pn are only active with sustained input from multiple distributed cortical sources [Shipp 2017]. This sustain input the S.pn into an UP state, which allows a primary signal to drive the neuron, but doesn’t drive an AP (action potential) directly. Typically the context UP state inputs drive distal dendrites and spines, and the primary signal drives the proximal dendrite. S.pn are hyper polarized at rest, making it difficult for a signal to drive an AP directly. The UP state depolarizes the S.pn, allowing the signal to drive an AP. Essentially this means the context neurons are required gates for the signal.

Combinations of context neurons drive a dendrite UP state, which allows the signal to drive the projection neuron. CN (context neuron), S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), S.pn (striatum projection neuron).

The above diagram shows how each S.pn has an associated context made from a conjunction of several context neurons. Each S.pn has a different combination of context neurons, each differing greatly from its neighbor [Bolam and Bevan 2006]. Multiple simultaneous context neurons are necessary for an UP state.

Broad circuit

Taking an overview of this system, let’s see how addition of this context information affects the seek and timeout circuit affects the earlier circuit.

Olfactory timeout circuit with Ob.l added as a context input to S.v. Ad (adenosine), Hb (habenula), Ob (olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallium), S.d1 (striatum D1 projection neuron), S.d2 (striatum D2 projection neuron), V.pt (posterior tubuculum)

The above diagram shows the addition of Ob.l to S.ot was the only change necessary, along with the dimension expansion of the S.pn.

Cache-like model for simulation

The striatum architecture poses a scaling problem for the simulation. The striatum has a large number of neurons, each with a large number of essentially random inputs. This architecture works because the possible combinations are predefined. Each odor neighborhood is a conjunction of odor features, each corresponding to an Ob glomeruli and O.mc (olfactory mitral cells). The many predefined conjunctions are likely to match any new odor combination. However, a simulation model using this architecture would be overly large.

Because the essay model is a toy model, it can use a much simplified system. A cache-like architecture can work because only a few odor locations are active at any time. The cache only holds the recent odor locations, and the cache entry for an odor location is removed when the timeout expires. The simulation cache only needs to store the active locations, unlike the striatum, which holds the much larger number of possible distinct locations.

Simulation

The simulation adds a simplification of odor neighborhoods. Instead of simulating accurate odor plumes, each location has a place code, which then produces an odor code. In the screenshot below, the hexagonal colors represent these place codes that produce odor neighborhoods.

Simulation screenshot of the animal reaching food in a different neighborhood than the previously avoided neighborhood.

The above diagram shows two different odor neighborhoods (teal vs red). The animal avoids the red neighborhood after failing to find food, but seeks in the teal neighborhood to find the food. If the animal had first searched the teal neighborhood without food, it would have avoided have avoided the teal neighborhood with food.

Discussion

A major simplification in the simulation is consistency and precision in odor cues. In an actual environment, odors are not reliable. For now I’m not adding that complexity, but it might explain the need for cortical circuits in O.pir (piriform olfactory cortex) and E.hc (hippocampus). If an odor is irregular, some circuit needs to maintain a consistent odor neighborhood for the timeout circuit to work. In the simulation because the Ob perfectly represents the odor neighborhood and food plume, the downstream circuits can use the Ob signal directly. If the odor varies slightly within a neighborhood, or is lost intermittently, the S.ot timeout circuit could shift to a different S.pn timeout, breaking the logic of the circuit. A later essay might explore how cortical areas like O.pir might be necessary to create a stable neighborhood.

References

Beauséjour PA, Auclair F, Daghfous G, Ngovandan C, Veilleux D, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. Dopaminergic modulation of olfactory-evoked motor output in sea lampreys (Petromyzon marinus L.). J Comp Neurol. 2020 Jan 1;528(1):114-134. 

Beauséjour PA, Veilleux JC, Condamine S, Zielinski BS, Dubuc R. Olfactory Projections to Locomotor Control Centers in the Sea Lamprey. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Aug 29;25(17):9370.

 Bolam, J. P., & Bevan, M. D. (2006). Microcircuits of the striatum. In Basal Ganglia and Thalamus in Health and Movement Disorders (pp. 29-39). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567. 

Jacobs LF, Schenk F. Unpacking the cognitive map: the parallel map theory of hippocampal function. Psychol Rev. 2003 Apr;110(2):285-315. 

Jacobs L. F. (2012). From chemotaxis to the cognitive map: the function of olfaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109(Suppl. 1) 10693–10700 

Lafferty CK, Yang AK, Mendoza JA, Britt JP. Nucleus Accumbens Cell Type- and Input-Specific Suppression of Unproductive Reward Seeking. Cell Rep. 2020 Mar 17;30(11):3729-3742.e3.

Laurent G. Olfactory network dynamics and the coding of multidimensional signals. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Nov;3(11):884-95. 

Pombal MA, Megías M. Development and Functional Organization of the Cranial Nerves in Lampreys. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2019 Mar;302(3):512-539. 

Shipp S. The functional logic of corticostriatal connections. Brain Struct Funct. 2017 Mar;222(2):669-706. 

Suryanarayana SM, Pérez-Fernández J, Robertson B, Grillner S. Olfaction in Lamprey Pallium Revisited-Dual Projections of Mitral and Tufted Cells. Cell Rep. 2021 Jan 5;34(1):108596. 

Essay 36: Parabrachial as Tunicate Brain

Previous essay 23 (feeding and neuropeptide core) and essay 27 (feeding state machine) covered feeding, but were not based on the ascidian tunicate brain. After studying tunicates in essay 30 (RTPA – real time place avoidance), I think using the adult ascidian brain is a better foundation. The earlier essays chose the center of feeding at H.l (lateral hypothalamus), which is a foraging locomotion center, but this essay centers feeding around eating in R.pb (parabrachial). Where R.pb is centered around eating, tasting, and digestion, H.l is centered of seeking and locomotion. Because adult ascidians are sessile, they have no locomotion, but they do eat by filter feeding, suggesting that the eating functions in R.pb are more fundamental to the feeding process than the locomotive foraging.

Adult ascidian

The adult ascidian tunicate (specifically Ciona “sea squirt”) is a sessile filter feeder. Like other chordates, ascidian filter feeding uses pharyngeal slits, which developed into gills for vertebrates, and later into the jaw. The ascidian larva phase is only 24 hours and can swim like vertebrates, using phototaxis and geotaxis to find an appropriate permanent settling place. The adult ascidian brain dissolves the larva navigation areas and expends the “neck” of the larva brain, between the sensory ganglia and the motor ganglia [Gigante et al 2023].

Rough description of the adult ascidian Ciona brain.

The adult ascidian brain is marked by the Phox2 genetic transcription factor [Gigante et al 2023], which corresponds to specific vertebrate hindbrain areas. In vertebrates Phox2b corresponds to much of the hindbrain, including N5 (trigeminal), N7 (facial), N10 (vagus), N11 (accessory) nerves, R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), and R.na (nucleus ambiguous). The vertebrate Phox2a corresponds to V.lc (locus coeruleus – norepinephrine), N3 (oculomotor), and N4 (trochlear) nerves [Dufour et al 2006]. To put it another way, the branchial (pharyngeal) motor neurons are a distinct group consisting of N5, N7, N9 (glossopharyngeal), N10, and N11 [Fritzsch et al 2017].

The Phox2b nuclei essentially match the parasympathetic system:

  • N5 – trigeminal – jaw, chewing, face and mouth
  • N7 – facial – facial expressions and taste in tongue
  • N9 – glossopharyngeal – taste in tongue, swallowing, blood pressure
  • N10 – vagus – heart, breathing, digestion, etc.
  • N11 – accessory – shoulder and neck
  • R.nts – nucleus of the solitary tract – visceral and taste sensorimotor
  • R.na – nucleus ambiguous – speech, swallowing, cardiac

Note that the jaw develops from the first pharyngeal arch, and the pectoral girdle (shoulder and neck) may develop from the last pharyngeal arch [Brazeau et al 2023].

The Phox2a nuclei are:

  • N3 – oculomotor – most eye movement
  • N4 – trochlear – additional eye movement
  • V.lc – locus coeruleus – main source of norepinephrine

Because the ascidian adult brain is necessarily self-contained, corresponding to a restricted set of hindbrain ganglia, it’s a good center module for vertebrates, as a thought experiment. However, it’s important to remember that tunicates are highly divergent from the original vertebrate/tunicate ancestor and trying to derive that ancestor from ascidians is extremely suspect [Holland 2015].

R.pb parabrachial nucleus

For the sake of the simulation, I’m combining R.pb with associated nuclei like R.nts, R.na, and R.plc (pre locus coeruleus). Science research needs to distinguish the nuclei, of course, but complicating the essay’s model wouldn’t add much verisimilitude.

R.pb is a highly heterogenous area [Pauli et al 2022] with at least 36 gene expression clusters [Nardone et al 2024]. Its neurons derive from two distinct progenitor populations marked by transcription factors lmx1b and foxp2 [Karthik et al 2022]. The lmx1b population projects to the Phox2b hindbrain population, S.a (central amygdala), P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis), H.pstn (presubthalamic nucleus), T.vpm (thalamus gustatory), and C.i (insular cortex). The foxp2 population projects to hypothalamic area Poa (preoptic area), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), and H.vm (ventromedial hypothalamus).

R.pb parabrachial descending projections are to Phox2b hindbrain nuclei. N5 (trigeminal), R.my (medulla), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial nucleus).

Many R.pb populations transform short stimuli (10ms) into long effects, often to suppress feeding. For example an experimental 10s tail shock suppresses feeding for 30s to 60s using intracellular mechanisms including cAMP and PKA, which suppressed licking but not suppress locomotion [Singh Alvarado et al 2024]. In R.pb, cAMP half life was 33s. Other areas like Po.m (medial preoptic area) with extended firing have longer decay times.

Sleep, wake, and breathing

The R.pb area, particularly around R.pb.m (medial R.pb) and including the neighboring V.lc, is one of the most critical wake areas. If the area is lesioned, the animal can become comatose [Fuller et al 2011]. R.pb astrocytes promote wakefulness [Liu PC et al 2023], and R.pb stimulation wakes from anesthesia [Luo et al 2018]. R.pb to H.l strongly correlates with H.l orexin neurons, which are wake promoting [Huang et al 2021]. R.pb is strongly connected with P.bf (basal forebrain), which manages cortical arousal [McKenna et al 2021]. R.pb’s neighboring R.sld (sublaterodorsal nucleus) is responsible for REM atonia [Peever and Fuller 2016]. The nearby R.pz (parafacial zone) suppresses R.pb to promote sleep [Anaclet et al 2014].

R.pb is also strongly associated with breathing, and the Phox2b region of the hindbrain is required for breathing [Dutchemann and Dick 2012]. Because vertebrate gills and lungs developed from the earlier filter-feeding pharyngeal arches, breathing is a natural extension of the earlier feeding function.

Malaise: LPS and CGRP

Proto-vertebrate filter feeding includes feeding on bacteria, but some bacteria are toxic. LPS (lipopolysaccharide) is a marker for bacterial inflammation [Essner et al 2017], immediately halts feeding in mice, and is often used in behaviorist training for CTA (conditioned taste aversion) [Palmiter 2018], [Parker 2003]. The LPS sensors are in the gut, travel through N10 to R.nts and to R.pb using the CGRP peptide marker [Campos et al 2016]. The R.pb.cgrp (CGRP R.pb neurons) halt eating [Carter et al 2013] and produce CTA (conditioned tasted aversion) [Carter et al 2015].

Sickness inhibition of eating. R.nts.r (rostral nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb.el (external lateral parabrachial nucleus).

Importantly, note that R.pb neurons are almost entirely glutamate. Although the limitation of lacking inhibition doesn’t matter yet, it will become important soon and motivate the H.arc (arcuate hypothalamus) and S.am (central medial amygdala). So, even though the effect of R.pb.cgrp is to stop eating, R.pb is an active command to stop eating, not an inhibition gating an eating action. I’m assuming eating defaults to enabled, which may make sense for a filter feeder. Alternatively, the eating motor neurons in the Phox2b area may have additional requirements such as food touching the lips via N5 (trigeminal). In the above diagram R.nts.lps is only active when the gut sensors detect LPS, when then triggers R.pb.cgrp, which stops eating.

In the case of LPS, which is essentially food poisoning, the animal might trigger vomiting to remove the toxins from the but, may want to avoid the area to stop filter feeding the disease, and when learning is available to learn some signs to avoid getting sick again.

On review of this section, although LPS is a trigger for R.pb CGRP, much of this discussion applies to LiCl, which is a distinct gut warning peptide. A later essay should clarify when LPS and LiCl can be treated as equivalent and when they need to be distinguished.

Gut satiation: CCK and oxytocin

Satiation also suppresses eating. Like LPS, satiation stops eating or drinking, but unlike LPS, it’s not a negative effect. In fact if the animal is pleasantly full, it might remember the area. CCK is a gut peptide that marks the gut as being full and can also be a nutrient sensor [Palmiter 2018]. In mammals, oxytocin signals a thirst satiation. If the animal it’s thirsty it doesn’t drink.

Satiation suppresses eating and drinking via R.pb. H.pv (periventricular hypothalamus), OXT (oxytocin), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial)

H.pv (paraventricular hypothalamus) also produces satiety signals. H.pv MC4 and H.pv dyn neurons each produce 50% of H.pv satiety [Li MM et al 2019]. The H.pv targets are distinct from R.pb CGRP.

Bitter tastes

For safety animals taste food before eating because it’s inefficient and dangerous to detect bad food only after developing food poisoning. In mice bitter tastes stimulate R.nts.r, which drives orofactial expressions like “gaping” by the N9 (glossopharyngeal) motor complex [Kinzeler and Travers 2008]. Because mice can’t vomit, rejecting dangerous-tasting food is particularly important. R.nts.r also detects sweet tastes and produces positive orofacial expressions like licking [Roussin et al 2012]. At a higher level bitter taste activates R.pb.el CGRP neurons, which feeds into the eating termination circuitry used by LPS detection.

Bitter response circuitry in R.pb. R.nts bitter tastes excite R.pb CGRP neurons which stop eating. H.arc AgRP hunger can suppress bitter or neophobia. H.arc (arcuate hypothalamus), N9 (glossopharyngeal nerve), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial), AgRP (hunger peptide), CGRP (alarm peptide).

Interestingly, these two orofacial expressions — gaping and licking — are used as signs of hedonic pleasure in studies of the basal ganglia, which distinguish motivation from pleasure [Berridge 2019].

Hunger: “homeostatic feeding”

Until now I’ve assumed eating as a default activation with R.pb as a brake to stop eating, whether from toxins or satiation, but vertebrates are positively motivated by hunger, such as the AgRP hunger peptide produced by H.arc (arcuate hypothalamus). If the H.arc AgRP neurons are inhibited, mice will starve [Roman et al 2016]. This anorexia can be reversed if the R.nts CCK satiety neurons are also disabled [Roman et al 2016].

Hunger from H.arc suppresses neophobia and bitter to disinhibit eating. AgRP (hunger peptide), H.arc (arcuate hypothalamus), CCK (gut satiation peptide), CGRP (alarm peptide), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial)

The above diagram shows the system of hunger disinhibiting eating by suppressing neophobia, gut satiation and bitterness. By default R.nts CCK neurons tonically activate R.pb.el CGRP neurons, which disables eating. When the animal is hungry, H.arc AgRP neurons suppress the tonic food inhibition from R.pb CGRP neurons, letting the animal eat. This system is also used for food neophobia, where the animal won’t eat a new food until it’s known to be safe [Campos et al 2018], [Palmiter 2018].

The hunger signal can be circadian; it’s not necessarily triggered by low energy stores. For example rodents typically forage as soon as they’re awake [Blum et al 2014]. The system doesn’t need to wait until the animal is starving with low blood sugar before eating. Along with circadian input, the H.arc neurons are modulated by several factors including signals for fat availability (leptin) [Andermann and Lowell 2017].

Note that this system allows for the combination of “not hungry” with “not sated.” If the animal doesn’t have AgRP (not hungry) but also not CCK (not sated), it will still not eat because of the default R.pb inhibition. This “homeostatic feeding” allows for a high quality “hedonic feeding,” where the animal will eat rich food (typically sugar or fat) if it finds some, but won’t fill itself with low quality food beyond what is necessary to stop hunger [Tang et al 2022].

Sweetness: hedonic feeding

After the animal has satisfied its base hunger, it might still eat if it can find some rich food (sweet or fatty). There’s always room for dessert. If high quality rich food is unavailable, circadian or hunger-driver feeding will keep the animal from starving. Once the animal avoids minimal starvation, it can afford to search for better food sources. After nibbling the food, the animal will only eat if it’s sweet or savory.

Sweetness as disinhibiting satiation or bitterness. CGRP (alarm peptide), M.dp (deep midbrain), N9 (glossopharyngeal nerve), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial), S.am (central medial amygdala), SST (somatostatin peptide)

In the diagram above, sweet tastes inhibit the R.pb CGRP neurons, allowing the animal to eat when not hungry but also not sated. R.pb sweet taste neurons are marked by satb2 [Fu et al 2019]. R.pb satb2 neurons project to S.am (central medial amygdala) [Jaramillo et al 2021], [Jarvie et al 2021]. S.am (somatostatin) neurons also directly project to M.dp (deep midbrain reticular) to lick after tasting sweet [Zheng D et al 2022]. Ethanol can act like sweet tastes to increase drinking via S.am nts (neurotensin) to R.pb [Torruella-Suárez et al 2020].

Note that this diagram doesn’t show the only source of sweet motivation. The adjacent R.plc (pre locus coeruleus) nucleus can also drive eating for sweet tastes. Inhibition of R.plc glutamate neurons will eat sweet [Gong et al 2020]. Like R.pb, R.plc has a long duration effect. Inhibiting R.plc extends eating for approximately 15s.

Note [Jaramillo et al 2021] report that all R.pb to S.a / P.bst express CGRP or PACAP. In contrast [Jarvie et al 2021] report R.pb.satb2 to S.am.

R.pb S.a CGRP alarm

An animal needs to interrupt its eating when it’s alarmed, whether a problem from an environmental threat such as high heat, CO2, itch, injury, or pain from eating, such as capsicum from a pepper. R.pb CGRP neurons serve as a general alarm, which stops eating [Campos et al 2018], [Jaramillo et al 2019].

S.a threats as suppressing S.a sweetness to stop eating. CGRP (alarm peptide), LPS (sickness peptide), M.dp (deep reticular midbrain), N.sp.l1 (layer 1 spinal cord), N9 (glossopharyngeal), pkcδ (gene marker for S.al halting), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial)

The above diagram adds pain and alarm eating suppression to the top of the previous S.am diagram. This diagram only shows two R.pb.el CGRP inputs, but other inputs also feed into the R.pb.el CGRP neurons, including N5 (trigeminal) pain sensors for the jaw and mouth [Campos et al 2018], [Carter et al 2013], [Palmiter 2018].

Note the similarity between the S.al and S.am circuit and the Sv.d2 (ventral striatum D2 neurons) and Sv.d1 (ventral striatum D1 neurons) circuit. Some definitions of the external amygdala include S.msh (medial shell of the ventral striatum) along with P.bst (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis.)

Consensus loops

Before the circuits become too complicated, let’s step back to explore how to manage the complexity. The problem of complexity will quickly multiply in this essay as it covers more modules that each modulate eating. Essay 30 RTPA (real time place avoidance) ran into the same problem and added a notion of a consensus loop, where multiple independent, distributed drives voted continually to decide on an action.

Consensus voting model to select a drive to motor action.

The above diagram shows the essay 30 consensus voting model. Instead of a single action path from stimulus to motor, a set of drives and actions consult each other in a mutually-inhibited winner-take-all system to choose an action. In this essay’s motivation for feeding, it may be simpler to consider the consensus system as managing a number of shared peptides, instead of drawing ever more complicated diagrams. This model resembles the old notion of an “isodendritic core,” which included areas like R.pb, H.l and similar reticular areas [Ramón-Moliner and Nauta 1966], [Agnati et al 2010], where broadcast transmission of peptides is more important than axon synaptic connectivity.

Another model for managing action selection uses diffusion models and Langevin dynamics to describe complex distributed choice in the brainstem [Richman et al 2023]. In their experiment where mice are both hungry and thirsty, the mice choose water or food rewards in a sticky, stochastic manner, choosing water rewards several times in a row before switching to food and then switching back. The brainstem regions in that study’s choice are highly distributed with over 10 regions providing significant management, without any one region serving as a central decision hub.

Weak attractor, diffusion model showing the stochastic, sticky action selection. The choice sticks to a shallow attractor basin, which is weak enough to allow for switching to the other basin..

The above diagram shows the eat vs drink decision as a weak stochastic attractor model. The choice switches between two shallow attractor basins. Because the forces on the choice are stochastic, the choice switches between basins, but stays in a particular basin for a short time. Other models might stick to one choice in a winner-take-all model or switch consistently in an oscillator model.

Going forward in this essay, consider each new module as contributing to a shared consensus decision as opposed to considering the model as a strict connection circuit.

H.pstn hunger and eating suppression

H.pstn (presubthalamic nucleus) is part a part of H.l directly focused on eating, in contrast to the H.l focus on waking, arousal, exploration, and seeking. H.pstn is more responsive to rich food than plain food, part of the hedonic eating as opposed to homeostatic hunger [Chometton et al 2016]. H.pstn is strongly connected with S.a and P.bst and is the main H.l target of S.a [Shah et al 2022].

H.pstn rich food circuit, as a parallel and connected circuit to S.am. H.pstn (presubthalamic nucleus), pkcδ (central amygdala aversive marker), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.plc (pre locus coeruleus), R.pb (parabrachial), S.al (lateral central amygdala), S.am (medial central amygdala), SST (S.a attractive marker)

The above diagram shows some of the H.pstn connectivity, focusing on its connections to R.pb and S.a. R.plc was mentioned previously for rich food. H.pstn connections include P.ipac (interstitial nucleus of the posterior limb of the anterior commissure), P.si (substantia innominata aka ventral pallidum), P.bst, T.pv (paraventricular thalamus), R.m5 (trigeminal motor nucleus), R.pz (parafacial zone), R.nts, R.dmv (dorsal motor of vagus nerve). H.pstn also receives input from F.ai (granular insular cortex), H.pv, M.pag.v (ventral periaqueductal gray), R.plc [Shah et al 2022]. In other words H.pstn has many connections and can also directly drive hindbrain eating motor areas.

Because S.a is a GABA nucleus and H.pstn is primarily glutamate, the two areas may work synergistically [Shah et al 2022]. Because S.a, P.bst, and H.l GABA neurons cluster into a genetically related group [Yao et al 2023], an ancestral vertebrate may have had a combined S.am and H.l GABA with H.pstn and H.l glutamate. This H.pstn connection is a reason to consider the consensus loop model because trying to model it more precisely is getting into the weeds.

S.v and taste

Taste in S.v (ventral striatum) can drive eating is parallel with the S.a (central amygdala) system. S.v is a heterogenous system, not only with core, lateral shell and medial shell, but S.msh (medial shell) is itself highly heterogenous [Castro et al 2015], [Chen R et al 2021]. The S.v taste connectivity is more specialized and uses different connectivity than the canonical basal ganglia connectivity.

S.v taste and eating extension. DA (dopamine), GLP-1 (sickness peptide), R.ap (area postrema), R.my (medulla), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial), Sv (ventral striatum), Vta (ventral tegmental area)

The above diagram shows some Sv connectivity to R.pb, R.nts, R.my, and R.ap (area postrema). A sweet taste drives the Sv.d1 (Sv projection neuron with D1 receptor) neuron to extend eating. The companion Sv.d2 (Sv projection neuron with D2 receptor) suppresses eating directly to R.nts, and suppresses the Sv.d1 eating extension. [Sandoval-Rodríguez et al 2023]. As with S.v, adenosine quickly times out the Sv.d1 path and enables the Sv.d2 path. This might allow for a hesitant lick to taste, preventing full eating. If the taste is sweet, then DA (dopamine) is activated via Vta (ventral tegmental area), and the DA potentiates the Sv.d1 path and suppresses the Sv.d2 path, which will extend eating.

Ignoring dopamine for a moment, the above Sv functionality is similar to Sa functionality, where Sv.d1 promotes eating with sweet taste, like S.am extends eating for sweet taste. Similarly, Sv.d2 suppresses eating for GLP-1 (LPS peptide marker), like S.al suppresses eating for R.pb CGRP alarms. As essay 31 explored, adenosine in S.v can timeout Sv-enabled actions. Without extra domaine, the sweet taste only allows for a minimal extension of eating.

R.pb directly drives Vta for DA to S.v, either enhancing DA for sweet taste or inhibiting for food shocks [Coizet et al 2010], [Han W et al 2018], [Nagashima et al 2023], [Tsou et al 2023]. Looking at the diagram above, enhancing DA extends eating by encouraging the Sv.d1 path, while suppressing DA curtails eating by encouraging the Sv.d2 path.

R.pb S.msh

Let’s return to the S.v modulation of taste and eating. Earlier, sweet tests drove DA to extend eating by driving the S.v.d1 path that extends eating, but an alarm while eating the sweet food should curtail eating.

Alarms suppress dopamine to curtail eating. A CGRP alarm drives RMTg to suppress Vta dopamine, forcing a stratum timeout. CGRP (alarm peptide) DA (dopamine), R.ap (area postrema), R.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), R.pb (parabrachial), RMTg (rostromedial tegmental nucleus), Sv (ventral striatum), Vta (ventral tegmental area).

The above diagram extends the previous circuit by suppressing dopamine for an alarm, such as sickness to suppress sweet taste. An alarm drives R.pb.el, which drives Vta.rmtg (rostromedial tegmental nucleus) to suppress Vta [Coizet et al 2010], which suppresses dopamine, which forces a timeout of the striatum circuit, driving the Sv.d2 path to suppress eating.

The Vta.rmtg path has another interesting input from the R.pb sweet neurons. R.pb sweet drives P.ms.g SST (median septum somatostatin, which inhibits Hb.l (lateral habenula) to inhibit the tonic suppression of Vta.rmtg [Shen et al 2022]. In short, R.pb sweet disinhibits Vta DA through the P.ms.g to Hb.l path.

Median septum sweet-promoting path. A sweet taste drives P.ms.g SST neurons, which disinhibits Vta through the Hb.l to Vta.rmtg path. DA (dopamine), Hb.l (lateral habenula), P.ms (median septum), R.pb (parabrachial), RMTg (rostromedial tegmental nucleus), S.core (ventral striatum core), Vta (ventral tegmental area)

Because Hb.l glutamate neurons are tonically active, providing a midpoint suppress of Vta DA, Hb.l can be driven in either direction to increase or decrease DA.

Poa temperature

The Poa (preoptic area) has many functions, but the function most directly connected to R.pb is temperature defense. R.pb sends both too hot and too cold signals to Poa, which responds to temperature for multiple coping methods including vasoconstriction and vasodilation, and thermotaxis to leave the too hot or too cold area [Norris et al 2021], [Yahiro et al 2017].

Temperature modulation in the preoptic area driven by parabrachial signals. Hb.m (medial habenula), Poa (preoptic area), R.ip (interpeduncular area), R.pb parabrachial.

Pain

R.pb is a center of sustained pain, as opposed to sharp, acute pain. To keep this essay from growing out of control, I’ll not dive too deeply into the details. For simplicity I’ll treat pain as just another input to the R.pb.l.cgrp input. This pain R.pb.l CGRP signal then activates S.al and P.bst, which curtails eating.

R.pb to hypothalamus

There seems to be three distinct R.pb to hypothalamus connections: eating, pain avoidance, and waking / seeking. As mentioned above H.pstn is highly concerned with eating, particularly rich food and is highly connected with S.a, which has similar connectivity and activation [Chometton et al 2016]. Because S.a is primarily GABA and H.pstn is primarily glutamate, their connectivity may be synergistic. R.pb has a strong connectivity with the H.l orexin neurons for wake and seeking, complementary with the R.pb role in sleep and wake.

Essay model

I’ve chosen to group eating-related areas functionally as opposed to anatomically. BodyEat represents physical body simulation, such as a short digestion delay in the gut and accumulating glucose as the food digests. HindEat includes the Phox2b hindbrain areas including R.nts, R.ap and the branchial derived motor nerves N5 (trigeminal), N7 (facial), N9, N10 (vagus), and N11. MotiveEat includes R.pb eating-related areas, S.am eating, S.al bitter / sickness response, H.pstn rich food, and also includes S.v taste response.

A different model might make each anatomical area into its own module, such as a module for R.pb or split into finer R.pb.l and R.pb.m. However, that approach would run quickly into the issue of module boundaries, particularly because R.pb is more organized by genetic clusters than anatomical boundaries. As important, spliggin modules between R.pb, S.a, H.arc, H.pv, and H.pstn would obscure the shared functionality.

Essay simulation modules

HindMove includes reflexive orofacial movements such as eating (licking), vomiting, and gaping, which is a rodent facial expression functionally equivalent to spitting food out. These behavior are equivalent to R.nts triggering of orofacial movement.

MotiveEat does not include foraging locomotive decisions, such as seeking toward an odor plume, roaming search, and avoidance. When the animal tries to eat a bitter food, it not only stops eating and initiates gaping, but it needs to reverse foraging and avoid the current area to prevent a return to the same bad food patch.

Simulation

The essay simulation expands food items into multiple kinds: plain, bitter, sweet, and sickness. The diagram below shows the setup. The different star colors show the food kinds: red for sweet, orange for plain, and yellow for bitter. Because odors are not distinct, the animal can’t predict the kind of food until eating it.

Simulation screenshot showing the animal avoiding a bitter food area.

An immediate problem in the simulation was bitter food causing a freeze, because the initial implementation stopped eating, and produce gaping, but didn’t avoid the area. Because avoidance never triggered, the animal never left the bitter area. To fix that problem, a bitter taste triggers a general alarm to avoid the current area.

Because sweetness and sampling before eating when the animal is no longer hungry turns out to be relatively complicated, I’ve postponed the implementation because it’s not clear how sampling works. For example it may require Sv or Sd to quickly halt eating, possibly using adenosine as in essay 31. But adding that striatum complexity would derail the current R.pb focus.

Discussion

The main idea of the essay is to pub R.pb in the center of feeding and even as a seed at the center of vertebrate behavior. That center is a seed to build more complicated behavior around. The justification for this idea is an analogy with the ascidian adult brain, which only controls filter feeding and visceral activity such as digestion, respiration, and heart rate. The common vertebrate and tunicate ancestor probably didn’t have the ascidian degenerate brain, but high competition in the Cambrian may have forced a bottleneck with a smaller, focused brain.

This approach has a large advantage of organizing many distributed systems. S.am and S.al make sense as managing R.pb taste and eating with inhibition. H.pstn and S.am manage eating rich food beyond foraging for plain food. H.arc and H.pv manage eating by modulating R.pb CGRP inhibition, driven in part of circadian drives. P.bst, H.l, and Hb.l manage the avoidance of food, driven by R.pb bitterness or sickness signals.

References

Agnati, L. F., Guidolin, D., Guescini, M., Genedani, S., & Fuxe, K. (2010). Understanding wiring and volume transmission. Brain research reviews, 64(1), 137-159.

Anaclet C, Ferrari L, Arrigoni E, Bass CE, Saper CB, Lu J, Fuller PM. The GABAergic parafacial zone is a medullary slow wave sleep-promoting center. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Sep;17(9):1217-24. 

Andermann, M. L., & Lowell, B. B. (2017). Toward a wiring diagram understanding of appetite control. Neuron, 95(4), 757-778.

Berridge KC. Affective valence in the brain: modules or modes? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019 Apr;20(4):225-234. 

Blum ID, Zhu L, Moquin L, Kokoeva MV, Gratton A, Giros B, Storch KF. A highly tunable dopaminergic oscillator generates ultradian rhythms of behavioral arousal. Elife. 2014 Dec 29;3:e05105. 

Brazeau MD, Castiello M, El Fassi El Fehri A, Hamilton L, Ivanov AO, Johanson Z, Friedman M. Fossil evidence for a pharyngeal origin of the vertebrate pectoral girdle. Nature. 2023 Nov;623(7987):550-554. 

Campos CA, Bowen AJ, Han S, Wisse BE, Palmiter RD, Schwartz MW. Cancer-induced anorexia and malaise are mediated by CGRP neurons in the parabrachial nucleus. Nat Neurosci. 2017 Jul;20(7):934-942. 

Campos CA, Bowen AJ, Roman CW, Palmiter RD. Encoding of danger by parabrachial CGRP neurons. Nature. 2018 Mar 29;555(7698):617-622.

Carter ME, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD. Genetic identification of a neural circuit that suppresses appetite. Nature. 2013 Nov 7;503(7474):111-4. 

Carter ME, Han S, Palmiter RD. Parabrachial calcitonin gene-related peptide neurons mediate conditioned taste aversion. J Neurosci. 2015 Mar 18;35(11):4582-6.

Castro DC, Cole SL, Berridge KC. Lateral hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, and ventral pallidum roles in eating and hunger: interactions between homeostatic and reward circuitry. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015 Jun 15;9:90. 

Chen R, Blosser TR, Djekidel MN, Hao J, Bhattacherjee A, Chen W, Tuesta LM, Zhuang X, Zhang Y. Decoding molecular and cellular heterogeneity of mouse nucleus accumbens. Nat Neurosci. 2021 Dec;24(12):1757-1771. Chiang, M. C., Bowen, A., Schier, L. A., Tupone, D., Uddin, O., & Heinricher, M. M. (2019). Parabrachial Complex: A Hub for Pain and Aversion. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 39(42), 8225-8230.

Chometton S, Pedron S, Peterschmitt Y, Van Waes V, Fellmann D, Risold PY. A premammillary lateral hypothalamic nuclear complex responds to hedonic but not aversive tastes in the male rat. Brain Struct Funct. 2016 May;221(4):2183-208. 

Coizet V, Dommett EJ, Klop EM, Redgrave P, Overton PG. The parabrachial nucleus is a critical link in the transmission of short latency nociceptive information to midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Neuroscience. 2010 Jun 16;168(1):263-72.

Dufour HD, Chettouh Z, Deyts C, de Rosa R, Goridis C, Joly JS, Brunet JF. Precraniate origin of cranial motoneurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 6;103(23):8727-32. 

Dutschmann M, Dick TE. Pontine mechanisms of respiratory control. Compr Physiol. 2012 Oct;2(4):2443-69. 

Essner RA, Smith AG, Jamnik AA, Ryba AR, Trutner ZD, Carter ME. AgRP Neurons Can Increase Food Intake during Conditions of Appetite Suppression and Inhibit Anorexigenic Parabrachial Neurons. J Neurosci. 2017 Sep 6;37(36):8678-8687.

Fritzsch B, Elliott KL, Glover JC. Gaskell revisited: new insights into spinal autonomics necessitate a revised motor neuron nomenclature. Cell Tissue Res. 2017 Nov;370(2):195-209.

Fu O, Iwai Y, Kondoh K, Misaka T, Minokoshi Y, Nakajima KI. SatB2-Expressing Neurons in the Parabrachial Nucleus Encode Sweet Taste. Cell Rep. 2019 May 7;27(6):1650-1656.e4.

Fuller PM, Sherman D, Pedersen NP, Saper CB, Lu J. Reassessment of the structural basis of the ascending arousal system. J Comp Neurol. 2011 Apr 1;519(5):933-56. 

Gigante ED, Piekarz KM, Gurgis A, Cohen L, Razy-Krajka F, Popsuj S, Ali HS, Sundaram SM, Stolfi A. Specification and survival of post-metamorphic branchiomeric neurons in the hindbrain of a non-vertebrate chordate. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Aug 14:2023.06.16.545305.

Gong R, Xu S, Hermundstad A, Yu Y, Sternson SM. Hindbrain Double-Negative Feedback Mediates Palatability-Guided Food and Water Consumption. Cell. 2020 Sep 17;182(6):1589-1605.e22.

Han S, Soleiman MT, Soden ME, Zweifel LS, Palmiter RD. Elucidating an Affective Pain Circuit that Creates a Threat Memory. Cell. 2015 Jul 16;162(2):363-374.

Han W, Tellez LA, Perkins MH, Perez IO, Qu T, Ferreira J, Ferreira TL, Quinn D, Liu ZW, Gao XB, Kaelberer MM, Bohórquez DV, Shammah-Lagnado SJ, de Lartigue G, de Araujo IE. A Neural Circuit for Gut-Induced Reward. Cell. 2018 Oct 18;175(3):665-678.e23. 

Holland, L. Z. (2015). Genomics, evolution and development of amphioxus and tunicates: the Goldilocks principle. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 324(4), 342-352.

Huang D, Grady FS, Peltekian L, Geerling JC. Efferent projections of Vglut2, Foxp2, and Pdyn parabrachial neurons in mice. J Comp Neurol. 2021 Mar;529(4):657-693.

Jaramillo AA, Brown JA, Winder DG. Danger and distress: Parabrachial-extended amygdala circuits. Neuropharmacology. 2021 Oct 15;198:108757. 

Jarvie BC, Chen JY, King HO, Palmiter RD. Satb2 neurons in the parabrachial nucleus mediate taste perception. Nat Commun. 2021 Jan 11;12(1):224. 

Karthik S, Huang D, Delgado Y, Laing JJ, Peltekian L, Iverson GN, Grady F, Miller RL, McCann CM, Fritzsch B, Iskusnykh IY, Chizhikov VV, Geerling JC. Molecular ontology of the parabrachial nucleus. The Journal of Comparative Neurology. 2022;530:1658–1699. 

Kinzeler NR, Travers SP. Licking and gaping elicited by microstimulation of the nucleus of the solitary tract. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2008 Aug;295(2):R436-48. 

Li MM, Madara JC, Steger JS, Krashes MJ, Balthasar N, Campbell JN, Resch JM, Conley NJ, Garfield AS, Lowell BB. The Paraventricular Hypothalamus Regulates Satiety and Prevents Obesity via Two Genetically Distinct Circuits. Neuron. 2019 May 8;102(3):653-667.e6. 

Liu PC, Yao W, Chen XY, Su WK, Zheng ZH, Yan XB, Deng YL, Shi KG, Liu X, Gao YW, Lin TT, Zhu YX, Lin YX, Zhu ZH, Cai P, Zhang LC, Chen L. Parabrachial nucleus astrocytes regulate wakefulness and isoflurane anesthesia in mice. Front Pharmacol. 2023 Jan 13;13:991238. 

Luo T, Yu S, Cai S, Zhang Y, Jiao Y, Yu T, Yu W. Parabrachial Neurons Promote Behavior and Electroencephalographic Arousal From General Anesthesia. Front Mol Neurosci. 2018 Dec 4;11:420. 

McKenna JT, Yang C, Bellio T, Anderson-Chernishof MB, Gamble MC, Hulverson A, McCoy JG, Winston S, Hodges E, Katsuki F, McNally JM, Basheer R, Brown RE. Characterization of basal forebrain glutamate neurons suggests a role in control of arousal and avoidance behavior. Brain Struct Funct. 2021 Jul;226(6):1755-1778. 

Nagashima T, Mikami K, Tohyama S, Konno A, Hirai H, Watabe AM. State-dependent modulation of positive and negative affective valences by a parabrachial nucleus-to-ventral tegmental area pathway in mice. Front Neural Circuits. 2023 Nov 29;17:1273322. 

Nardone S, De Luca R, Zito A, Klymko N, Nicoloutsopoulos D, Amsalem O, Brannigan C, Resch JM, Jacobs CL, Pant D, Veregge M, Srinivasan H, Grippo RM, Yang Z, Zeidel ML, Andermann ML, Harris KD, Tsai LT, Arrigoni E, Verstegen AMJ, Saper CB, Lowell BB. A spatially-resolved transcriptional atlas of the murine dorsal pons at single-cell resolution. Nat Commun. 2024 Mar 4;15(1):1966.

Norris AJ, Shaker JR, Cone AL, Ndiokho IB, Bruchas MR. Parabrachial opioidergic projections to preoptic hypothalamus mediate behavioral and physiological thermal defenses. Elife. 2021 Mar 5;10:e60779.

Palmiter RD. The Parabrachial Nucleus: CGRP Neurons Function as a General Alarm. Trends Neurosci. 2018 May;41(5):280-293. 

Parker LA. Taste avoidance and taste aversion: evidence for two different processes. Learn Behav. 2003 May;31(2):165-72.

Pauli JL, Chen JY, Basiri ML, Park S, Carter ME, Sanz E, McKnight GS, Stuber GD, Palmiter RD. Molecular and anatomical characterization of parabrachial neurons and their axonal projections. Elife. 2022 Nov 1;11:e81868.

Peever J, Fuller PM. Neuroscience: A Distributed Neural Network Controls REM Sleep. Curr Biol. 2016 Jan 11;26(1):R34-5. 

Richman EB, Ticea N, Allen WE, Deisseroth K, Luo L. Neural landscape diffusion resolves conflicts between needs across time. Nature. 2023 Nov;623(7987):571-579.

Roman CW, Derkach VA, Palmiter RD. Genetically and functionally defined NTS to PBN brain circuits mediating anorexia. Nat Commun. 2016 Jun 15;7:11905.

Ramón-Moliner E, Nauta WJ. The isodendritic core of the brain stem. J Comp Neurol. 1966 Mar;126(3):311-35.

Roussin AT, D’Agostino AE, Fooden AM, Victor JD, Di Lorenzo PM. Taste coding in the nucleus of the solitary tract of the awake, freely licking rat. J Neurosci. 2012 Aug 1;32(31):10494-506.

Sandoval-Rodríguez R, Parra-Reyes JA, Han W, Rueda-Orozco PE, Perez IO, de Araujo IE, Tellez LA. D1 and D2 neurons in the nucleus accumbens enable positive and negative control over sugar intake in mice. Cell Rep. 2023 Mar 28;42(3):112190.

Shah T, Dunning JL, Contet C. At the heart of the interoception network: Influence of the parasubthalamic nucleus on autonomic functions and motivated behaviors. Neuropharmacology. 2022 Feb 15;204:108906. 

Shen L, Zhang GW, Tao C, Seo MB, Zhang NK, Huang JJ, Zhang LI, Tao HW. A bottom-up reward pathway mediated by somatostatin neurons in the medial septum complex underlying appetitive learning. Nat Commun. 2022 Mar 7;13(1):1194. 

Singh Alvarado J, Lutas A, Madara JC, Isaac J, Lommer C, Massengill C, Andermann ML. Transient cAMP production drives rapid and sustained spiking in brainstem parabrachial neurons to suppress feeding. Neuron. 2024 May 1;112(9):1416-1425.e5. 

Tang Q, Assali DR, Güler AD, Steele AD. Dopamine systems and biological rhythms: Let’s get a move on. Front Integr Neurosci. 2022 Jul 27;16:957193. 

Torruella-Suárez ML, Vandenberg JR, Cogan ES, Tipton GJ, Teklezghi A, Dange K, Patel GK, McHenry JA, Hardaway JA, Kantak PA, Crowley NA, DiBerto JF, Faccidomo SP, Hodge CW, Stuber GD, McElligott ZA. Manipulations of Central Amygdala Neurotensin Neurons Alter the Consumption of Ethanol and Sweet Fluids in Mice. J Neurosci. 2020 Jan 15;40(3):632-647. 

Tsou JH, Lee SR, Chiang CY, Yang YJ, Guo FY, Ni SY, Yau HJ. Negative Emotions Recruit the Parabrachial Nucleus Efferent to the VTA to Disengage Instrumental Food Seeking. J Neurosci. 2023 Nov 1;43(44):7276-7293. 

Yahiro T, Kataoka N, Nakamura Y, Nakamura K. The lateral parabrachial nucleus, but not the thalamus, mediates thermosensory pathways for behavioural thermoregulation. Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 10;7(1):5031. 

Yao Z, van Velthoven CTJ, Kunst M, Zhang M, McMillen D, Lee C, Jung W, Goldy J, Abdelhak A, Baker P, Barkan E, Bertagnolli D, Campos J, Carey D, Casper T, Chakka AB, Chakrabarty R, Chavan S, Chen M, Clark M, Close J, Crichton K, Daniel S, Dolbeare T, Ellingwood L, Gee J, Glandon A, Gloe J, Gould J, Gray J, Guilford N, Guzman J, Hirschstein D, Ho W, Jin K, Kroll M, Lathia K, Leon A, Long B, Maltzer Z, Martin N, McCue R, Meyerdierks E, Nguyen TN, Pham T, Rimorin C, Ruiz A, Shapovalova N, Slaughterbeck C, Sulc J, Tieu M, Torkelson A, Tung H, Cuevas NV, Wadhwani K, Ward K, Levi B, Farrell C, Thompson CL, Mufti S, Pagan CM, Kruse L, Dee N, Sunkin SM, Esposito L, Hawrylycz MJ, Waters J, Ng L, Smith KA, Tasic B, Zhuang X, Zeng H. A high-resolution transcriptomic and spatial atlas of cell types in the whole mouse brain. bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2023 Mar 6:2023.03.06.531121.

Zheng D, Fu JY, Tang MY, Yu XD, Zhu Y, Shen CJ, Li CY, Xie SZ, Lin S, Luo M, Li XM. A Deep Mesencephalic Nucleus Circuit Regulates Licking Behavior. Neurosci Bull. 2022 Jun;38(6):565-575.

Essay 35: Avoid Sequences

This essay explores using the hippocampus as a sequence generator [Buzsáki and Tingley 2018] to precisely time the avoidance action after a failed seek. In essay 31, the animal started with a roaming random search, which turned into a directed seek when it smelled a food odor. If the animal failed to find food after a timeout, it would avoid the area. This essay expands on that model by improving the avoidance action. Previously, the avoidance time was modeled on a cellular timeout, which is imprecise. Instead, we can use an hippocampus sequence to time the avoidance.

State diagram for the foraging task. A random walk roaming search switched to a directed seek when the animal smells a food odor. It switches to avoidance if the seek times out.

This foraging search resembles a Levy walk, which combines a area-restricted brownian walk with longer movements to avoid repeated searches in an area.

In the previous essay, the seek action timed out using astrocyte-managed adenosine in the striatum, but the avoid timeout wasn’t specified, presumably piggybacking on the astrocyte adenosine. Improving the avoidance time and distance can use a sequence generated by the hippocampus. In mice, this kind of distance measurement and timeout is seen in C.pp (posterior parietal cortex) with neurons tiling the delay period, forming a sequence [Harvey et al 2012], [Rajan et al 2016] and in E.ca1 (hippocampus CA1 area) [Pezzulo et al 2017].

Because this essay remains as primitive as possible, and we haven’t added cortex regions yet, we can only add one simplified cortical area. One option is to consider C.pp as a primitive cortex region that can self-generate the necessary sequences. Another option is to consider E.hc (hippocampus) as the main sequence generator and treat C.pp as a later specialization for sophisticated vertebrates like mammals.

The hippocampus can be seen as a sequence generator [Buzsáki and Tingley 2018]. E.hc (hippocampus) sequences are approximately 7s from first place cell neuron to the last neuron in the sequence [Pezzulo et al 2017], and E.hc delay timing is approximately 8s [Abela et al 2015]. Similarly F.pl (prelimbic prefrontal cortex) sequence neurons tile choice encoding for 7s across an experimental trial. C.pp neurons can tile the distance from a start position in mice [Harvey et al 2012], [Rajan et al 2016]. In mice E.ca1 path integration has a maximum of 2m unless extended by landmarks [Fischler-Ruiz et al 2021].

Additionally, the timeout sequence needs a mechanism to trigger it and to drive the avoidance action. I’ll cover a possible trigger from H.sum (supramammillary) and an output from E.hc either directly to H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.sum, or Poa (preoptic area), or using S.ls (lateral septum as an intermediary.

E.hc place cell for delay

A study in [Fischler-Ruiz et al 2021] studied E.ca1 (CA1 region of hippocampus) with mice traveling a virtual maze, where the liquid reward was 4m from the initial starting point. Instating of waiting for the full 4m, mice expected reward at 2m unless an odor landmark near 2m extended the range to 4m. Neurons in E.ca1 tracked the distance traveled with short time neuron fragment tiling the delay period. A sparse number of neurons active for a short period and as one neuron ends another, new neuron takes its place, like a long thread is made of shorter fibers. This thread frays at around 2m when mice lose track of the task.

Diagram of neurons tiling a delay period. After a simultaneous initial spike of many neurons at top left, a sequence of neurons fire and replace each other.

Mouse C.pp neurons in virtual maze tile the delay period [Kamiński and Rutishauser 2020]. The above diagram shows the neural tiling. Each row is a single neuron, and time is on the x axis, and the neurons are sorted by their activity. At top is an initial simultaneous burst of many neurons that respond to some event. This large burst is followed by smaller sets of neurons that persist for a small time. When one neuron stops, another neuron takes its place, until the sequence frays and ends.

Roam vs Seek

H.sum is associated with active exploration and is quiet while eating [Kesner et al 2021]. H.sum is activated by food anticipation, food restriction, or gherkin, a hunger peptide [Le May et al 2019]. 

[Wee et al 2019] H.l (lateral hypothalamus) and Hc (caudal hypothalamus) are both feeding related but are anti-correlated. Hc activates when the zebrafish is hungry and drives the roaming search for food, but when a specific target (paramecium for zebrafish) is detected, H.l activates and Hc deactivates for specific hunting and for eating [Wee et al 2019].

In zebrafish, Hc is comparable to the mammal posterior hypothalamus, which includes H.sum and H.mb (mammillary body), H.tu (tuberal hypothalamus), and H.arc (arcuate nucleus). Zebrafish Hc includes all these areas [Schredelseker and Driver 2020], which are genetically and functionally distinct. Unfortunately this makes it unclear which area is driving the roaming search. H.arc for example is associated with hunger and anti-correlated with eating, using hunger neuropeptides AgRP and NPY in H.arc [Berrios et al 2021]. H.sum is also activated by food anticipation or hunger [Le May et al 2019].

AgRP drops quickly on food cues, drops more slowly for gut nutrient detection, and is slow or permanent in energy balance like blood glucose [Berrios et al 2021]. The specific path for seek dropping AgRP is H.l glutamate to H.dm (dorsal medial hypothalamus) GABA to H.arc AgRP. The H.dm effect disappears with sleep time. RTPP (real-time place preference) is 80% if AgRP is inhibited.

In addition, zebrafish H.l is not identical with the mammal H.l. For example, the orexin and MCH neuropeptide neurons in mammals are part of H.l, while they are in distinct non-H.l areas in zebrafish [Schredelseker and Driver 2020].

In other words, while this essay is taking H.sum as embodying the roam as opposed to H.l embodying the seek, the exact correlations of roam and seek are not yet known.

E.hc input and output

If E.hc drives the seek timeout’s avoid action sustain, how does the seek timeout trigger the E.hc sequence timer to start, and how does E.hc sustain the avoidance? E.hc has three major avoidance action paths it could influence: the obstacle avoidance path through OT (optic tectum) from essay 34, the temporal gradient taxis path through Hb.m – R.ip (medial habenula to interpeduncular nucleus) from essay 33, and the related motivational path through H.l (lateral hypothalamus) and Hb.l (lateral habenula).

Action paths for avoidance to the hippocampus. The left panel shows obstacle avoidance from the optic tectum via C.pp. The right panel shows taxis avoidance from the Hb.m to R.ip path. C.pp (posterior parietal cortex), E.hc (hippocampus), E.mec (medial entorhinal cortex), E.por (postrhinal cortex), H.sum (supramammillary), Hb.m (medial habenula), OT (optic tectum), P.ldt (laterodorsal nucleus), P.ms (median septum), R.in (nucleus incepts), R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus), V.mr (median raphe)

The above diagram shows possible input paths to E.hc. On the left, OT (optic tectum) sends visual threat and obstacle information to C.pp and E.por (postrhinal / parahippocampal cortex) via T.lp (lateral posterior / pulvinar thalamus), then to E.mec (medial entorhinal cortex), and finally to E.hc. In the right panel, Hb.m-R.ip sends feedback to E.hc through multiple paths, including H.sum, V.mr (median raphe), R.in (nucleus incepts) and through P.ms (median septum). These two paths differ not only on the information they convey, but also their circuit effects on E.hc. While the left OT path is a data-driven path that excites glutamate neurons, the right Hb.m-R.ip path is a control path that drives E.hc interneuron control circuitry using GABA, ACh (acetylcholine), and 5HT (serotonin) to modulate the action and timing of E.hc.

For this essay, the control path is more interesting, is part because it’s more closely tied to the seek-roam control, and in part because the control circuitry is more fundamental to E.hc operation. The interneuron circuit for the cortex and the hippocampus are highly conserved for all vertebrates, but at some point in evolution they must have been new. Because this essay is exploring adding the first cortical-like area, it needs to address the interneuron controls and not merely assume their existence.

Motivational avoid feedback to the hippocampus. A motivational avoid signal from Hb.l drives E.c through V.mr. E.hc (hippocampus), H.sum (supramammillary), Hb.l (lateral habenula), P.ms (median septum), V.mr (median raphe)l

A different, motivational path using V.mr arrives from Hb.l (lateral habenula) instead of the Hb.m – R.ip taxis path. Hb.l is more motivational and Hb.m it more of a physical taxis function. As I’ll be using later in the essay, the full avoid path first travels through the motivational Hb.l, then to E.hc for the avoid time/distance sequence, and finally to Hb.m – R.ip for physical avoidance.

Output paths for timed avoidance. The left panel shows a possible path to OT via C.pp. The right panel shows a path to Poa and H.sum via S.ls. C.pp (posterior parietal cortex, E.ca1 (hippocampus CA1 area), E.sub (hippocampus subiculum), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.sum (supramammillary), OT (optic tectum), Poa (preoptic area), S.ls (lateral septum).

The avoidance output path from E.hc could use one of three action paths. E.hc can drive obstacle-like avoidance through C.pp to OT. Secondly it can drive physical gradient taxis avoidance through Hb.m via P.ts (triangular septum) and P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure) [Yamaguchi et al 2013]. Finally it can drive motivational avoidance to H.l, H.sum, and Poa (preoptic area) through S.ls (lateral septum). The above diagram shows the obstacle avoidance path through C.pp to OT and the motivational avoidance path through H.l, H.sum, and Poa. (Note: Poa to M.pag to MLR is more direct avoidance than motivational.) The Poa path drives movement directly through M.pag (periaqueductal gray) and MLR (midbrain locomotor region), which the diagram omits for brevity.

Output path for motivational avoidance using S.v. E.ca1 (hippocampus CA1 area), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Hb.l (lateral habenula), P.v (ventral pallidum), S.v (ventral striatum/nucleus accumbens), Vta (ventral tegmental area).

Another E.hc motivational output uses S.v (ventral striatum / nucleus accumbens) and P.v (ventral pallidum / endopeduncular nucleus) to H.l and Vta (ventral tegmental area) for seeking and to Hb. for avoidance. Although this path is similar to the S.ls motivational path above, in mammals at least it’s a distinct circuit. Unlike the S.ls path, the S.v motivational path does not target H.sum or Poa but does strongly target Hb. Note that S.v and S.ls are similar structures both derived from the same progenitor domain LGE (lateral ganglionic eminence) and is neighbors with S.v, also known as nucleus accumbens septi, Latin for nucleus adjacent to the septum.

Output path from hippocampus to medial habenula via P.bac and P.ts. E.hc (hippocampus), Hb.m (medial habenula), P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure), P.ts (triangular septum).

Mammals also have a direct E.hc output to Hb.m-R.ip via P.ts (triangular septum) and P.bac (bed nucleus of the anterior commissure, which is sometimes identified with part of P.bst bed nucleus of the stria terminalis) [Proulx et al 2014]. As described in previous essays, Hb.m has a direct function for phototaxis [Chen and Engert 2014], chemotaxis [Beretta et al 2012], thermotaxis, and some social conflict [Agetsuma et al 2010]. This mammal P.ts/P.bac is understudied, or I haven’t found any study describing its function, but by its connection E.hc could drive taxis via the Hb.m-R.ip connection. This connection does not exist in lamprey [Stephenson-Jones et al 2012], but I haven’t read any studies on this connectivity for other non-mammal animals.

Ancestral vertebrate forebrain

Stepping back to cover the ancestral vertebrate forebrain (cortex and basal ganglia) to understand likely primitive areas, particularly the E.hc equivalent. Ancestral models generally use Pa (pallium) to describe cortical-like areas and divide pallial areas into multiple regions, generally from four to six, depending on the theory. These areas are named by their location, where MPa (medial pallium) is in the middle, DPa (dorsal pallium) is on top, and LPa (lateral pallium) on the side.

Schematic vertebrate forebrain cross section. DPa (dorsal pallium – neocortex-like), LPa (lateral pallium – insular cortex), MPa (medial pallium – hippocampus-like), P (pallidum), S (striatum), VPa (ventral pallium – olfactory cortex and amygdala).

The above diagram shows the quadripartite model of the ancestral vertebrate forebrain [Hegarty et al 2024], [Pessoa et al 2019]. The dorsal areas are cortical-like and the ventral (basal) areas are striatal and pallidal (basal ganglia). The four areas match most vertebrate structure. MPa (medial pallium) is hippocampal, DPa (dorsal pallium) is sensory neocortex, LPa (lateral pallium) is the insula cortex (eating and tasting), E.lec (lateral entorhinal) and F.ofc (orbitofrontal), and VPa (ventral pallium) is the olfactory cortex and amygdala. In the diagram, the notch at the top is deliberate because the neural tube is formed by curling up a neural sheet until the two ends nearly match at the top. In most vertebrates the two ends at MPa curl more until they reach the base, forming two hemispheres, but in teleost fish the two ends curl out, putting MPa on lateral outside (Dl in teleosts) and VPa in the middle (Dm in teleosts) [Hegarty et al 2024], [Roth and Dicke 2013], [Porter and Mueller 2020].

Although this model is useful, it does minimize differences between vertebrates. For example, the mammalian DPa, the “neocortex,” doesn’t nicely match up with reptiles, instead the amygdala-like areas (DVR) take a larger role.

Unrolled hippocampus, showing the consistent order among amniotes. C (isocortex/neocortex), DPa (dorsal pallium), E.ca1, E.ca2, E.ca3 (hippocampus CA1, CA2, CA3 areas), E.dg (hippocampus dentate gyrus), E.ec (entorhinal cortex), E.sub (hippocampus subiculum).

In amniotes (lizards, birds, and mammals) E.hc has a similar structure, including E.dg (dentate gyrus), E.ca1, E.ca3, E.sub (subiculum), E.lec (lateral entorhinal cortex), and E.mec (medial entorhinal cortex) [Medina et al 2017]. As mentioned previously, although the fish Dl is likely an E.hc-like structure, its internals differ from the amniotes. If the fish Dl was a subset of the mammal E.hc, it would be useful to know which areas are more primitive.

The lamprey is interesting because it may not have an E.hc / MPa equivalent at all. A recent genetic cell analysis [Lamanna et al 2023], [Hervas-Sotomayor 2023] suggests that MPa is not ancestral because the medial pallial area in lampreys matches H.em (prethalamic eminence) instead, which is more closely associated with the hypothalamus and habenula, not the forebrain and specifically not matching hippocampal markers. In addition, the lamprey extended amygdala is distinct, well-defined, and separate from the lateral pallium, suggesting it may be more helpful to treat the extended amygdala as a distinct area instead of as part of the pallium. In the case of mammals, that distinction may not apply to A.bl (basolateral amygdala), which resembles the cortical DPa more than other parts of the amygdala [Moreno and González 2007]. [Lammana et al 2023] suggest that the quadripartite model may only apply to later vertebrates, and lampreys having an undifferentiated pallium, an amygdala, and a H.em with unknown purpose. These genetic results reinforce earlier suggestions that the lamprey “MPa” is actually an expended H.em.

For this study, which only uses the hippocampus / MPa, the lack of a lamprey MPa suggests that the sequential hippocampal model is a later vertebrate development. Even if accurate, it would be unknown if it developed specifically with jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes) or if it was an innovation ozone of the many preceding jawless vertebrates.

C.pp navigation delay

In mice, C.pp (posterior parietal cortex) tracks time and distance from a start position with neurons that tile the delay period, as shown in the earlier neuron firing diagram. Each neuron is only active for a fragment of the task, and as one neuron leaves the ensemble, another starts [Harvey et al 2012]. In their task, C.pp was required for memory related success, not needed for cue seeking.

C.pp is “vision for action” [Goodale and Milner 1992]. C.pp tuned to referred self motion and acceleration [Whitlock et al 2012]. In this context, the timing we need it motion timing, so self motion is critical. Some C.pp neurons fire up to 500ms before action and drop immediately on action.

Although these locomotion delays match what the essay needs, Cpp has a number of problems for this purpose. First, C.pp is part of the neocortex, which is specific to mammals. Birds, reptiles, and fish have a cortex (called pallium), but the area around C.pp is organized differently with a larger amygdala area (DVR) than cortical (dorsal pallium) [Aboitiz et al 2003]. Mammalian E.hc as an odor-motor region with 1D maps [Aboitiz and Montiel 2015].

Second, the most direct subcortical C.pp output is to OT (optic tectum), but otherwise C.pp requires C.mo (motor cortex) for any action. But in amphibians, the OT does not receive input from a cortical equivalent, but connects directly with the striatum [Pessoa et al 2019]. In the context of the essay, the OT doesn’t seem related to the place avoidance needed.

Third, the C.pp inputs are primarily indirect through other cortical areas, although using T.lp (lateral posterior thalamus) from OT. So, if C.pp is a primitive cortical area, it seems much more likely to be an OT-focused area, not a foraging area.

As a counterpoint, the electric fish Dc also has direct output to OT, which suggests a C.pp-like role. Dc is driven by the Dl (lateral cortex, possible E.dg) through DD (dorsal cortex, as possible E.ca3) [Fotowat et al 2019]. That study suggested the entire Pa (cortex) area is silent unless actively sensing and sequences were not studied. Other research suggests that only Dl.v (ventral Dl) is equivalent to E.hc, particularly to E.sub [Hegarty et al 2024]. [Rodríguez-Expósito et al 2017], which makes the comparison more tenuous, unless DD is something like C.rs (retrospenial cortex), which in mammals is between E.hc and C.pp.

Similarly, the lamprey LPA (lateral pallium / cortex) has a direct OT projection [Suryanarayana et al 2022], giving it a possible C.pp-like role, but the lamprey does not appear to have a hippocampus equivalent [Lamanna et al 2023]. It does have an expanded H.em (prethalamic eminence) which is physically located where the MPa (medial pallium / hippocampus) would be. Unfortunately, no current studies have covered H.em function in the lamprey, but it seems likely to be significantly different from the hippocampus.

In favor of C.pp as relevant here, a study of electric fish shows a path from Dl (E.dg – dentate gyrus equivalent) to Ddi (E.ca3 equivalent) to Dc (C.rs.5/C.pp.5 equivalent) to OT [Fotowat et al 2019]. However, in that study the entire Pa is silent except when swimming or active sensing (electro-sensing in this case), and it’s unclear if there are any sequences as in the mouse C.pp.

A different description of Dl points out that it primarily projects to Poa and Hc (caudal hypothalamus) [Northcutt 2006]. The fish Hc .sum set of efferents is that Dl projects to the area that includes H.arc, H.mb, H.sum, H.pm, and H.tu, which are developmentally conserved between fish and mammals [Wullimann 2022]. Because these areas have different functions, it would be useful to known exactly which specific areas Dl projects to. In mammals, Poa and H.sum are interconnected and are both associated with exploration and roaming [Escobedo et al 2023], [Ryoo et al 2021].

H.sum

As mentioned previously, H.sum is part of the basal hypothalamus and is highly conserved, existing in sharks [Santos-Durán et al 2022], teleost fish [Wullimann 2022], amphibians and reptiles [Domínguez et al 2016], birds [Kim DW et al 2022], and mammals [Bedont et al 2015], [Croizier et al 2015], [Ferran et al 2015]. I haven’t found an equivalent lamprey hypothalamus study, which would be especially interesting because of the lamprey’s lack of MPa / E.hc equivalent. If H.sum does exist in lampreys, its function and connectivity might show a simpler, more primitive function before adding MPa / E.hc capabilities.

H.sum has several distinct circuits, some with overlapping behavior. H.sum tac1 (Substance-P marker) is highly associated with voluntary locomotion, but not with E.hc theta [Farrell et al 2021]. H.sum is associated with active exploration and produces RTPP (real-time place preference) but is quiet while eating [Kesner et al 2021]. H.sum to Poa (preoptic area) projections are associated with avoidance to threads and shows a strong RTPA (real-time place avoidance) but not anxiety or CPA (conditioned place avoidance) [Escobedo et al 2023]. The H.sum to Poa connection has collaterals to E.ca2 but not to Hb.m or E.dg (hippocampus dentate gyrus). H.sum stimulation inhibits eating and its inhibition is required for eating. The projections to E.dg are related to object novelty and open field exploration [Pan et al 2004], [Chen S et al 2020], while the projection to E.ca2 is related to social novelty and temporal memory [Chen Z et al 2022], [Thirtamara et al 2024]. H.sum is also part of the food reward circuit and is reinforcing [Ikemoto 2010].

E.hc – hippocampus as sequence generator

One model of E.hc (hippocampus) is as a general sequence generator [Buzsáki and Tingley 2018]. The idea notes that E.hc is blind to its inputs, whether olfactory, visual, or vestibular, but what is consistent it its ability to tile gaps between events, and its internal timing structures such as fitting gamma (40-100Hz) bursts inside theta cycles (~8Hz), such as a consistent seven-ish game cycle bursts within a single theta cycle.

E.ca2 – hippocampal CA2

E.hc is a complicated structure with many parts, but must have evolved from an initial core area. Studies with other vertebrates show comparable areas to the hippocampus E.dg (dentate gyrus), E.ca1 (CA1 area), E.ca3 (CA3 area), and E.sub (subiculum area).

Unrolled hippocampus

For this essay, I’m considering E.ca2 as the most primitive because it’s strongly tied to sequence generation [Bhasin and Nair 2022], [He et al 2021], [Lehr et al 2021], [MacDonald and Tonegawa 2021], [Stöber et al 2020] and is reciprocally connected with H.sum, which I’m already using for its connection with RTPA and exploration. E.ca2 is reciprocally connected with H.sum in the early embryonic state, earlier than E.dg and E.ca3 connections [Diethorn and Gould 2023].

In mice, E.ca2 sustains internal sequence memory during delay [Lehr and Stöber 2021]. When E.ca2 is disabled, sequences are destabilized in E.ca1 [Lehr et al 2021]. Interestingly, during sleep E.ca2 appears to fire consistently to remember the animal’s current location [Kay et al 2016].

E.ca2 is distinguished from E.ca3 by its lack of E.dg input [Insausti et al 2023], making it an interesting candidate for an early area because it has fewer dependencies and requirements.

Neural models for sequences and persistence

Neural models for sequences are much less studied than models for persistence and memory. I’m using sequences for a delay period and delay periods are well studied. In behaviorist experiments, “trace conditioning” has a short delay between the cue to be remembered and the food reward or shock punishment.

Before approaching sequences, it seems best to consider persistence, which is better studied, such as persistent working memory. [Zylberberg and Strowbridge 2017] reviews multiple models of persistence. The main difference I’ll highlight is between models focused on intrinsic cellular responses such as bursting, in contrast with models that focus on recurrent connectivity, such as Hopfield networks [Hopfield 1982]. Experimentally, the evidence between cell-autonomous vs recurrent network is an open question [Kamiński and Rutishauser 2020].

Persistent bursts are 3-6 spikes [Zylberberg and Strowbridge 2017]. Epilepsy is related to these bursts and may be a failure in inhibitory circuits to contain expansion of these bursts. These bursts are enabled by metabotropic receptors such as mACh (acetylcholine metabotropic receptor). The hindbrain includes bursting neurons, such as VOR (vestibuloocular reflex), long plateau potentials in spinal motoneurons with Ca2+ (calcium) channels and with K+ (potassium) channels. These bursting mechanisms can rebound after inhibition.

Recurrent models of persistence

Recurrent models of persistence use feedback, recurrent connections of neurons back to the same area. If properly calibrated, these loops produce produce attractors that can remember data [Hopfield 1982]. A difficulty in recurrent models is the issue of fast neural circuits (10-20ms) extending to seconds, and how to maintain stability when 100-fold timescales are required [Zylberberg and Strowbridge 2017]. One common response is to use longer time circuits such as NMDA receptors with 100ms time constants. The longer basal constants reduce the stability issues. For example, one of the models for recurrent storage uses NMDA in a model of the VOR (vestibular-ocular reflex) [Seung 1996], where the eye target is maintained in a line attractor.

Criticisms of recurrence and attractors note the requirement for fine tuning [Zylberberg and Strowbridge 2017]. Continuous attractors require fine turning. For example, line attractors require precise recurrence, while noise and modulation affects the tractors. In addition, the timescale of excitation vs inhibition is important to the stability. In addition neurons tend to switch abruptly between discrete states as opposed to smooth, continuous variation. To reduce the issue, finely spaced concrete attractors are more tolerant than continuous attractors.

Continuous attractors use a smooth neuron rate encoded values, but firing rate models difficult to match actual neuron behavior [Compte et al 2000]. Spontaneous activity at 3.5Hz does not trigger attractor. [Lundqvist et al 2016] notes that individual neurons bridging a multi-second memory delay is rare, but a simple attractor model would have multiple neurons bridging the entire gap. [Cui and Strowbridge 2018] also note there is little experimental support for recurrent synaptic reverberation.

Intrinsic neural persistence

Intrinsic neural persistence models focuses more on cellular mechanisms for persistence, where an individual neuron fires for longer times, such as 2s without requiring external prompting like recurrence. Since the Lundqvist criticism [Lundqvist et al 2016] also applies here, that single neurons do not cover the entire gap, intrinsic cellular persistence alone is insufficient. However, extending the time constant from the 100ms of NMDA to 500ms or even multiple seconds reduces the need for precise calibration.

Persistent firing exists in C (cortex) and Ob (olfactory bulb) using cellular mechanisms, initiates by a burst of AP (action potentials) [Cui and Strowbridge 2018]. Many cellular persistent firings are enabled by m1.q (acetylcholine metabotropic receptor tied to G-q/11 proteins), and additionally require cellular Ca2+ (calcium ions) for bursting, triggered by the input bursts. ACh enhances excitability by reducing ERG (ether-a-go-go) K+ (potassium currents). The ERG K+ currents typically suppress bursting and persistence. By suppressing ERG K+, the ACh to m1.q path disinhibits bursting and persistence. ERG is highly expressed in deep C (layer 5/6 cortex), Snc DA (substantia nigra compacta dopamine), hindbrain, and E.ca1. ERG blockers abolish persistent firing in C.tea (temporal association area) and F.pfc (prefrontal cortex).

In the Cui and Strowbridge study [Cui and Strowbridge 2018], ACh enables persistence for at least 5s at 4.3Hz to 6.4Hz. With normal, non-ACh ERG behavior, input bursts produce a short AP burst followed by suppressed output. When ACh blocks ERG currents, input bursts produce an AP burst followed by persistent firing that requires Ca2+. In short, ACh enables persistent firing in the range of 500ms to 2ms for a single neuron without needing external recurrence.

Other studies show similar modulated persistence in other areas. In E.sub, ACh stimulation of m1.q enables extended plateau potentials [Kawasaki et al 1999], allowing sustained tonic firing. In layer 5 cortex, when ACh enables persistent firing, even the smallest apical depolarization produces L5 repetitive bursts [Schwindt and Crill 1999]. The plateau potential and prolonged response is over 400ms. Similar effects for ACh and m1.q promote sustained persistence in CB (cerebellum) and O.mt (olfactory bulb mitral cell) [Bauer and Schwarz 2018]

Tiling and threading

Combining longer persistent intrinsic cellular activity with recurrence provides many options for persistence and sequence generation. As mentioned above, mouse C.pp neurons in a virtual maze tiles a delay period [Kamiński and Rutishauser 2020]. Each neuron has an intrinsic persistent between 500ms and 1500ms, and only a sparse number like 10% are active at a time [Pastalkova et al 2008]. As one neuron ends its extended 500ms activity, another neuron takes its place. When the animal acts, the sequence is extinguished [Zylberberg and Strowbridge 2017].

Neuron tiling in prefrontal cortex, parietal and hippocampus.

One component of the sequence control is the E/I (excitation / inhibition) balance, managed by cortical interneurons. The E / I balance prevents runaway excitation, as in epilepsy, and instead restricts activity to a small subset of neurons. This balance is often oscillatory and combined with winner-take-all systems, where the first neurons to fire suppress slower neurons. In the case of sequences, when one neuron stops firing when its internal persistence ends, the E / I balance shifts towards allowing a new neuron to take its place.

A synfire chain, where each neuron triggers the next neuron in the sequence.

An older model of sequences is the synfire chain, where each neuron triggers the next neuron in the sequence. An argument against the strict synfire chain its developmental plausibility, because it requires precise connectivity.

Using excitation / inhibition balance with semi-random connectivity to allow dynamic sequences. The blue neuron is currently active, and the faded blue neurons are possible next steps in the sequence.

Instead of a precise synfire chain or the precise dynamics required for recurrent systems like [Hopfield 1982], [Rajan et al 2016] proposes a developmental model for sequences. Consider a set of neurons randomly connected, and modify only some of the connections to produce sequences. Neuron development includes calibration and pruning during early development, including intrinsic firing that would allow for sequence selection. Once the network is formed, sequences propagate by cooperation between recurrence and the input.

Adding sequence projection to a readout layer for sequence output

Because sequences are dynamic, their output may require a projection layer to a more meaningful subspace [Kamiński and Rutishauser 2020]. For example, this essay only needs a single active signal to continually drive the avoidance until the sequence ends.

Illustration of a sequence managed by the E / I balance of interneurons and read-out by a projection layer.

The diagram above shows how these ideas fit together. The pyramidal neurons in the middle form the backbone of the sequence. Each neuron has an intrinsic persistent firing for ~500ms. The PV (parvalbumin) interneurons prevent more than one neuron firing. Because the current neuron is already firing, it blocks the next neuron in the chain until the first neuron completes. The sequence is decoded by a separate output layer, such as S.ls (lateral septum) or E.sub (subiculum) before sending to the destination.

Simulation choices

Taking the above research into consideration, the simulation needs to make some choices of a plausible action path. Because this essay builds on the previous essay 31, which used S.v to Hb.l as a seek timeout, it makes sense to continue that path from Hb.l to P.ms and E.hc via V.mr and H.sum.

Action path for the avoid timeout used by the simulation. E.hc (hippocampus), H.sum (supramammillary), Hb.l (lateral habenula), P.ms (median septum), Poa (preoptic area), S.ls (lateral septum), S.v (ventral striatum / nucleus accumbens), V.mr (median raphe)

The output side has two tempting directions: E.hc to Poa and H.sum via S.ls, or E.hc to Hb.m-R.ip via S.ts and S.bac. The E.hc to Hb.m-R.ip has an advantage of exploring differences between Hb.l and Hb.m. One model is Hb.l as the motivational avoid and Hb.m as the physical taxis avoid, where evolution secondarily adds motivational Hb.l avoid as a more sophisticated indirection to the older Hb.m direct avoid taxis. The other option using S.ls to Poa and H.sum has the advantage of possibly being more primitive, because the P.ts / P.bac to Hb.m path may be restricted to mammals and therefore newer. The S.ls path also has the advantage of introducing the strong E.hc to hypothalamus connection via S.ls.

Sequence design

Because the simulation is a toy model where understandability is important, the simulation doesn’t directly implement individual neurons. One advantage is that neuron firing is generally sparse. For example, only about 10% of O.pir (olfactory cortex) neurons fire for any particular odor. Taking an idea from high-dimensional computing [Laiho et al 2015], an engram (neural assembly) can be represented by a vector of digits. Each digit is essentially one sparse neuron selected from a larger set. Base-16 is one neuron selected from 16. This digital representation can be displayed as a normal hex number such as 78af. For display purposes, base-64 is the largest feasible base, because its numerical digits plus lower and upper letters produce 62 with two special digits. Zero is reserved to represent no neurons firing in the digit. So 4305 represents 3 neurons firing, one from each of three active digits with the last digit silent.

In natural sequences, after one neuron falls out, a new random neuron takes its place. In simulation, this randomness adds complexity because to avoid repetition it would need to keep track of earlier values. For neurons this repetition avoidance is built-in because neurons can have a refractory period where they’re less responsive, giving fresh neurons a better chance to be chosen. Instead, the simulation reserves the lowest bits of each digit for sequences, leaving the highest bits for the random engram. The sequence also updates each digit sequentially instead of randomly. Zero represents the end of the sequence when all neurons stop firing. A sequence with a single base-16 digit might look like “8, 9, a, b, 0” or “4, 5, 6, 7, 0” if two bits are sequence bits, and a sequence with two digits might look like “84, 85, 95, 96, a6, a7, ....“

Simulation results

The following diagram shows a sample trajectory where the animal first seeks to the center of the odor plume and spins at the center until the S.v striatum adenosine times out as in essay 31. The timeout triggers a motivational avoid, representing V.mr and H.sum via Hb.l. The motivational avoid starts the E.hc sequence via P.ms, which activates the physical avoid representing either S.ls to Poa or Hb.m to R.ip depending on interpretation. When the sequence ends, E.hc stops driving the physical avoid, and the animal resumes its roaming search.

Simulation of the sequence avoid. The animal has just timed out of a failed search and is currently moving forward, avoiding the previous area.

Discussion

This essay raises a number of issues, mainly because the situation is understudied, and because it involves many regions that are generally studied independently. As a reminder, this essay is at best a thought experiment.

The lamprey’s lack of a MPa / E.hc (medial pallium / hippocampus) is the first interesting issue. H.em (prethalamic eminence) in the expected MPa location is also interesting. What does H.em do? In mammals it’s a progenitor area that disappears, and it produces neurons for P.epn (endopeduncular nucleus) and Cajal-Retzius neurons that populate neocortical layer 1 and organize the neocortical layers. But in lampreys the H.em functionality may be entirely different. It its function an any way similar to a primitive E.hc? Does the lamprey lack all internally generated sequences?

In addition, what happens in lampreys to all the areas connected with MPa / E.hc? Does H.sum and H.mb (mammillary body) exist in lampreys, and if it exists, what does it do? Similar questions for V.mr R.nin (nucleus incepts) and S.ls and P.ms. If E.hc is missing in lampreys, studying those areas might give more information about their function.

More Zebrafish studies about the Dl / E.hc would also be very interesting, because it seems to have a different structure from the common amniote E.hc. Consider the hunger study with the reciprocal activation of Hc (caudal hypothalamus) and H.l (lateral hypothalamus) when the animal detects a food cue [Wee et al 2019]. Because Hc is composed of H.sum, H.mb, H.tu and H.arc, which have distinct functions, learning exactly which areas are activated by hunger and suppressed during seek would be interesting. H.sum and H.mb are also understudied in zebrafish. Do they have similar connectivity to Dl (MPa / E.hc) and function as in mammals? Does Dl have similar sequential functionality? It does have SWF (sharp wave ripples) [Blanco et al 2024], which suggests zebrafish has Dl sequences, but does it have the same threading / tiling of delays?

Although this essay has used E.ca2 as the center of E.hc sequences, but E.ca2 has only been identified in mammals. Genetic transcription comparisons with other animals suggests E.ca3 as better conserved. If E.ca2 is a mammalian innovation, how does that affect how E.hc works in non-mammals?

References

Abela AR, Duan Y, Chudasama Y. Hippocampal interplay with the nucleus accumbens is critical for decisions about time. Eur J Neurosci. 2015 Sep;42(5):2224-33.

 Aboitiz F, Morales D, Montiel J. The evolutionary origin of the mammalian isocortex: towards an integrated developmental and functional approach. Behav Brain Sci. 2003 Oct;26(5):535-52; discussion 552-85.

Aboitiz F, Montiel JF. Olfaction, navigation, and the origin of isocortex. Front Neurosci. 2015 Oct 27;9:402. 

Agetsuma M., Aizawa H., Aoki T., Nakayama R., M. Takahoko, M. Goto, T. Sassa, R. Amo, T. Shiraki, K. Kawakami, et al. The habenula is crucial for experience-dependent modification of fear responses in zebrafish Nat. Neurosci., 13 (2010), pp. 1354-1356

Bauer CK, Schwarz JR. Ether-à-go-go K+ channels: effective modulators of neuronal excitability. J Physiol. 2018 Mar 1;596(5):769-783. 

Bedont JL, Newman EA, Blackshaw S. Patterning, specification, and differentiation in the developing hypothalamus. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. 2015 Sep-Oct;4(5):445-68. 

Beretta CA, Dross N, Guiterrez-Triana JA, Ryu S, Carl M. Habenula circuit development: past, present, and future. Front Neurosci. 2012 Apr 23;6:51. 

Berrios J, Li C, Madara JC, Garfield AS, Steger JS, Krashes MJ, Lowell BB. Food cue regulation of AGRP hunger neurons guides learning. Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7869):695-700. 

Bhasin G, Nair IR. Dynamic Hippocampal CA2 Responses to Contextual Spatial Novelty. Front Syst Neurosci. 2022 Aug 8;16:923911. 

Buzsáki G, Tingley D. Space and Time: The Hippocampus as a Sequence Generator. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Oct;22(10):853-869.

Chen S, He L, Huang AJY, Boehringer R, Robert V, Wintzer ME, Polygalov D, Weitemier AZ, Tao Y, Gu M, Middleton SJ, Namiki K, Hama H, Therreau L, Chevaleyre V, Hioki H, Miyawaki A, Piskorowski RA, McHugh TJ. A hypothalamic novelty signal modulates hippocampal memory. Nature. 2020 Oct;586(7828):270-274.

Chen X, Engert F. Navigational strategies underlying phototaxis in larval zebrafish. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 Mar 25;8:39. 

Chen Z, Chen G, Zhong J, Jiang S, Lai S, Xu H, Deng X, Li F, Lu S, Zhou K, Li C, Liu Z, Zhang X, Zhu Y. A circuit from lateral septum neurotensin neurons to tuberal nucleus controls hedonic feeding. Mol Psychiatry. 2022 Dec;27(12):4843-4860.

Compte A, Brunel N, Goldman-Rakic PS, Wang XJ. Synaptic mechanisms and network dynamics underlying spatial working memory in a cortical network model. Cereb Cortex. 2000 Sep;10(9):910-23. 

Croizier S, Chometton S, Fellmann D, Risold PY. Characterization of a mammalian prosencephalic functional plan. Front Neuroanat. 2015 Jan 6;8:161. 

Cui ED, Strowbridge BW. Modulation of Ether-à-Go-Go Related Gene (ERG) Current Governs Intrinsic Persistent Activity in Rodent Neocortical Pyramidal Cells. J Neurosci. 2018 Jan 10;38(2):423-440. 

Diethorn EJ, Gould E. Postnatal development of hippocampal CA2 structure and function during the emergence of social recognition of peers. Hippocampus. 2023 Mar;33(3):208-222. 

Domínguez L, González A, Moreno N. Patterns of hypothalamic regionalization in amphibians and reptiles: common traits revealed by a genoarchitectonic approach. Front Neuroanat. 2015 Feb 3;9:3. 

Escobedo Abraham, Holloway Salli-Ann, Votoupal Megan, Cone Aaron L, Skelton Hannah E, Legaria Alex A., Ndiokho Imeh, Floyd Tasheia, Kravitz Alexxai V., Bruchas Michael R., Norris Aaron J. (2023) Glutamatergic Supramammillary Nucleus Neurons Respond to Threatening Stressors and Promote Active Coping eLife 12:RP90972

Farrell JS, Lovett-Barron M, Klein PM, Sparks FT, Gschwind T, Ortiz AL, Ahanonu B, Bradbury S, Terada S, Oijala M, Hwaun E, Dudok B, Szabo G, Schnitzer MJ, Deisseroth K, Losonczy A, Soltesz I. Supramammillary regulation of locomotion and hippocampal activity. Science. 2021 Dec 17;374(6574):1492-1496. 

Ferran JL, Puelles L, Rubenstein JL. Molecular codes defining rostrocaudal domains in the embryonic mouse hypothalamus. Front Neuroanat. 2015 Apr 17;9:46.

Fischler-Ruiz, W., Clark, D. G., Joshi, N. R., Devi-Chou, V., Kitch, L., Schnitzer, M., … & Axel, R. (2021). Olfactory landmarks and path integration converge to form a cognitive spatial map. Neuron, 109(24), 4036-4049.

Fotowat H, Lee C, Jun JJ, Maler L. Neural activity in a hippocampus-like region of the teleost pallium is associated with active sensing and navigation. Elife. 2019 Apr 3;8:e44119.

Goodale MA, Milner AD. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 1992 Jan;15(1):20-5. 

Harvey CD, Coen P, Tank DW. Choice-specific sequences in parietal cortex during a virtual-navigation decision task. Nature. 2012 Mar 14;484(7392):62-8.

He H, Boehringer R, Huang AJY, Overton ETN, Polygalov D, Okanoya K, McHugh TJ. CA2 inhibition reduces the precision of hippocampal assembly reactivation. Neuron. 2021 Nov 17;109(22):3674-3687.e7.

Hegarty BE, Gruenhagen GW, Johnson ZV, Baker CM, Streelman JT. Spatially resolved cell atlas of the teleost telencephalon and deep homology of the vertebrate forebrain. Commun Biol. 2024 May 21;7(1):612.

Hervas Sotomayor, F. (2024). Tracing the origins and evolution of the vertebrate brain: a comparative cellular study in anamniotes (Doctoral dissertation).

Hopfield JJ. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. PNAS. 1982;79(8):2554–58.

Ikemoto S. Brain reward circuitry beyond the mesolimbic dopamine system: a neurobiological theory. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Nov;35(2):129-50. 

Insausti, R., Muñoz‐López, M., & Insausti, A. M. (2023). The CA2 hippocampal subfield in humans: A review. Hippocampus, 33(6), 712-729.

Kamiński J, Rutishauser U. Between persistently active and activity-silent frameworks: novel vistas on the cellular basis of working memory. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2020 Mar;1464(1):64-75.

Kawasaki H, Palmieri C, Avoli M. Muscarinic receptor activation induces depolarizing plateau potentials in bursting neurons of the rat subiculum. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;82(5):2590-601.

Kay K, Sosa M, Chung JE, Karlsson MP, Larkin MC, Frank LM. A hippocampal network for spatial coding during immobility and sleep. Nature. 2016 Mar 10;531(7593):185-90. 

Kesner AJ, Shin R, Calva CB, Don RF, Junn S, Potter CT, Ramsey LA, Abou-Elnaga AF, Cover CG, Wang DV, Lu H, Yang Y, Ikemoto S. Supramammillary neurons projecting to the septum regulate dopamine and motivation for environmental interaction in mice. Nat Commun. 2021 May 14;12(1):2811.

Kim DW, Place E, Chinnaiya K, Manning E, Sun C, Dai W, Groves I, Ohyama K, Burbridge S, Placzek M, Blackshaw S. Single-cell analysis of early chick hypothalamic development reveals that hypothalamic cells are induced from prethalamic-like progenitors. Cell Rep. 2022 Jan 18;38(3):110251.

Lamanna F, Hervas-Sotomayor F, Oel AP, Jandzik D, Sobrido-Cameán D, Santos-Durán GN, Martik ML, Stundl J, Green SA, Brüning T, Mößinger K, Schmidt J, Schneider C, Sepp M, Murat F, Smith JJ, Bronner ME, Rodicio MC, Barreiro-Iglesias A, Medeiros DM, Arendt D, Kaessmann H. A lamprey neural cell type atlas illuminates the origins of the vertebrate brain. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Oct;7(10):1714-1728. 

Le May MV, Hume C, Sabatier N, Schéle E, Bake T, Bergström U, Menzies J, Dickson SL. Activation of the rat hypothalamic supramammillary nucleus by food anticipation, food restriction or ghrelin administration. J Neuroendocrinol. 2019 Jul;31(7):e12676. 

Lehr AB, Kumar A, Tetzlaff C, Hafting T, Fyhn M, Stöber TM. CA2 beyond social memory: Evidence for a fundamental role in hippocampal information processing. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Jul;126:398-412.

Lehr AB, Stöber TM. Differential involvement of CA2 in internally vs. externally driven hippocampal sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 21;118(38):e2110671118. 

Lundqvist M, Rose J, Herman P, Brincat SL, Buschman TJ, Miller EK. Gamma and Beta Bursts Underlie Working Memory. Neuron. 2016 Apr 6;90(1):152-164.

MacDonald CJ, Tonegawa S. Crucial role for CA2 inputs in the sequential organization of CA1 time cells supporting memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 19;118(3):e2020698118. 

Medina L, Abellán A, Desfilis E. Contribution of Genoarchitecture to Understanding Hippocampal Evolution and Development. Brain Behav Evol. 2017;90(1):25-40. 

Moreno N, González A. Evolution of the amygdaloid complex in vertebrates, with special reference to the anamnio-amniotic transition. J Anat. 2007 Aug;211(2):151-63.

Northcutt, R. G. (2006). Connections of the lateral and medial divisions of the goldfish telencephalic pallium. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 494(6), 903-943.

Pan, Wei-Xing, and Neil McNaughton. The supramammillary area: its organization, functions and relationship to the hippocampus. Progress in neurobiology 74.3 (2004): 127-166.

Pastalkova E, Itskov V, Amarasingham A, Buzsáki G. Internally generated cell assembly sequences in the rat hippocampus. Science. 2008 Sep 5;321(5894):1322-7.

Pessoa L, Medina L, Hof PR, Desfilis E. Neural architecture of the vertebrate brain: implications for the interaction between emotion and cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Dec;107:296-312. 

Pezzulo G, Kemere C, van der Meer MAA. Internally generated hippocampal sequences as a vantage point to probe future-oriented cognition. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2017 May;1396(1):144-165. 

Porter BA, Mueller T. The Zebrafish Amygdaloid Complex – Functional Ground Plan, Molecular Delineation, and Everted Topology. Front Neurosci. 2020 Jul 16;14:608. 

Proulx CD, Hikosaka O, Malinow R. Reward processing by the lateral habenula in normal and depressive behaviors. Nat Neurosci. 2014 Sep

Rajan K, Harvey CD, Tank DW. Recurrent Network Models of Sequence Generation and Memory. Neuron. 2016 Apr 6;90(1):128-42. 

Rodríguez-Expósito, B., Gómez, A., Martín-Monzón, I., Reiriz, M., Rodríguez, F., & Salas, C. (2017). Goldfish hippocampal pallium is essential to associate temporally discontiguous events. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 139, 128-134.

Roth, G., Dicke, U. (2013). Evolution of Nervous Systems and Brains. In: Galizia, C., Lledo, PM. (eds) Neurosciences – From Molecule to Behavior: a university textbook. Springer Spektrum, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Ryoo J, Park S, Kim D. An Inhibitory Medial Preoptic Circuit Mediates Innate Exploration. Front Neurosci. 2021 Aug 23;15:716147. 

Santos-Durán GN, Ferreiro-Galve S, Mazan S, Anadón R, Rodríguez-Moldes I, Candal E. Developmental genoarchitectonics as a key tool to interpret the mature anatomy of the chondrichthyan hypothalamus according to the prosomeric model. Front Neuroanat. 2022 Aug 4;16:901451. 

Schredelseker T, Driever W. Conserved Genoarchitecture of the Basal Hypothalamus in Zebrafish Embryos. Front Neuroanat. 2020 Feb 6;14:3.

Schwindt P, Crill W. Mechanisms underlying burst and regular spiking evoked by dendritic depolarization in layer 5 cortical pyramidal neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1999 Mar;81(3):1341-54.

Seung HS. How the brain keeps the eyes still. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 12;93(23):13339-44.

Stephenson-Jones M, Floros O, Robertson B, Grillner S. Evolutionary conservation of the habenular nuclei and their circuitry controlling the dopamine and 5-hydroxytryptophan (5-HT) systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jan 17;109(3):E164-73.

Stöber, T. M., Lehr, A. B., Hafting, T., Kumar, A., & Fyhn, M. (2020). Selective neuromodulation and mutual inhibition within the CA3–CA2 system can prioritize sequences for replay. Hippocampus, 30(11), 1228-1238.

Suryanarayana SM, Pérez-Fernández J, Robertson B, Grillner S. The Lamprey Forebrain – Evolutionary Implications. Brain Behav Evol. 2022;96(4-6):318-333. 

Thirtamara Rajamani K, Barbier M, Lefevre A, Niblo K, Cordero N, Netser S, Grinevich V, Wagner S, Harony-Nicolas H. Oxytocin activity in the paraventricular and supramammillary nuclei of the hypothalamus is essential for social recognition memory in rats. Mol Psychiatry. 2024 Feb;29(2):412-424. 

Wee CL, Song EY, Johnson RE, Ailani D, Randlett O, Kim JY, Nikitchenko M, Bahl A, Yang CT, Ahrens MB, Kawakami K, Engert F, Kunes S. A bidirectional network for appetite control in larval zebrafish. Elife. 2019 Oct 18;8:e43775.

 Whitlock, J. R., Pfuhl, G., Dagslott, N., Moser, M. B., & Moser, E. I. (2012). Functional split between parietal and entorhinal cortices in the rat. Neuron, 73(4), 789-802.

Wullimann MF. The Neuromeric/Prosomeric Model in Teleost Fish Neurobiology. Brain Behav Evol. 2022;97(6):336-360. 

Yamaguchi T, Danjo T, Pastan I, Hikida T, Nakanishi S. Distinct roles of segregated transmission of the septo-habenular pathway in anxiety and fear. Neuron. 2013 May 8;78(3):537-44. 

Zylberberg J, Strowbridge BW. Mechanisms of Persistent Activity in Cortical Circuits: Possible Neural Substrates for Working Memory. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017 Jul 25;40:603-627.

Essay 33: Klinotaxis

When seeking an odor, vertebrate swimming undulates left and right, naturally moving the nose perpendicular to the body motion. This lateral motion can help navigation if odor sampling can be coordinated with the movement, enabling a spatiotemporal gradient calculation along the path of the nose movement. This lateral sampling over time is called klinotaxis (“leaning navigation”) or weathervaning.

Essay 24 and essay 25 explored head-direction navigation as inspired by the fruit fly Drosophila fan-shaped body and ellipsoid body. The idea was to use head direction to translate egocentric movement into an allocentric memory of past samples, independent of the current body direction. In contrast, klinotaxis uses an egocentric system, where the lateral motion is relative to the current direction, not an independent, compass or map-like system.

Klinotaxis in Drosophila larva and C. elegans

Klinotaxis has been largely studied in the fruit fly Drosophila larva and the roundworm C. elegans. Drosophila larva have a distinct “cast” movement, where they pause and wave their heads side to side, either a single time (1-cast) or multiple times (n-cast) [Zhao et al 2017]. Larva movements break down into five major types [Gomez-Marin and Louis 2014]:

  • Forward
  • Backward
  • Stop
  • Turn
  • Cast

C. elegans has two major seek movements: pirouettes and weathervaning [Lockery 2011]. Pirouettes are a u-turn when the animal is moving away from the odor. Weathervaning is a side-to-side head movement that manages turning.

Both systems are temporal gradient systems, requiring measurements at different times and a memory of the older measurement [Chen X and Engert 2014]. Klinotaxis requires a basic form of memory [Karpenko et al 2020], but the comparison can be a simple ON or OFF result [Lockery 2011]. Pirouetts use a gradient parallel to body motion and reverse direction when the animal is moving away from the odor [Iino and Yoshida 2009]. Weathervaning uses a gradient perpendicular to body motion, measured with a lateral head movement [Lockery 2011].

This klinotaxis contrasts with a bilateral spatial navigation that compares two lateral sensors [Chen X and Engert 2014], such as bilateral eyes, ears, or nostrils. In Drosophila larva, odor turning is proportional to the lateral gradient more than the parallel gradient [Martinez 2014]. The odor navigation is not simply bilateral because disabling one side of O.sn (olfactory sensory neuron) only minimally impairs navigation [Gomez-Marin and Louis 2014].

As a slight digression, let’s return to the adult Drosophila navigation, because the structure can be a useful analogy for understanding vertebrate klinotaxis navigation, despite using a different allocentric system.

Adult Drosophila FSB

Below is a rough sketch of the Drosophila navigation circuit, focused on the fan-shaped body [Hulse et al 2021]. The ellipsoid body (EB) and protocerebral bridge (PB) calculate head direction and sort it into 18 columns. This head direction is allocentric, independent of the animal’s current direction, like a compass direction or a map. Input from odor areas like the mushroom body (MB) and lateral horn (LN) are organized into 9 rows. The fan-shaped body combines these 18 head direction columns and 9 sense data rows into a memory table.

Drosophila navigation
Drosophila navigation, focusing on head direction from PB, odor data from MB and LH, and allocentric table of FB. EB ellipsoid body, FB fan-shaped body, LH lateral horn, MB mushroom body.

Motor navigation reads out from the fan-shaped-body table. These motor commands include left and right, but also include a separate u-turn command [Westeinde et al. 2022]. Although this allocentric navigation system differs from egocentric klinotaxis, its motor output includes both the left vs right from weathervaning and the u-turn from pirouette.

The previous essay 24 and essay 25 attempts followed this model. As the animal moves in space, the model saved the forward odor gradient according to the current head direction. By comparing stored values for other head directions, the animal would improve its heading toward the direction with the strongest odor.

The fan-shaped body then becomes a record of samples of all the older directions that the animal had measured. Output is then calculated for left (PFL3L), right (PFL3R), and u-turn (PFL2) signals. [Westeinde et al 2024]. The current head direction is represented as a sinusoidal neural pattern and combined with the stored values to produce an output.

This system was only partially successful for the essay. Although it was an improvement over no memory, because the animal was continually moving in space, the table was always obsolete. Even when the table memory times out to represent loss in accuracy as the animal moves, the rapid obsolescence made navigation difficult, particularly as the animal neared the target.

So, this essay simplifies the circuit and lowers the ambition. Instead of trying to record every direction and keeping perfect allocentric compass direction, the animal could simple save its left and right oscillation as it swims naturally.

Vertebrate Hb.m and R.ip

The vertebrate Hb.m (medial habenula) to R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus) is used for phototaxis [Chen X and Engert 2014], Chemotaxis [Chen WY et al 2019] and thermotaxis [Palieri et al 2024]. In a clever experiment creating a virtual light circle, Chen and Engert shows that the zebrafish phototaxis is not simply comparing light between the eyes for a spatial gradient (tropotaxis) but is a temporally-based gradient (klinotaxis), relying on a short term memory of the previous light. This phototaxis uses the Hb.m to R.ip circuit [Chen X and Engert 2014].

Vertebrate olfactory klinotaxis circuit. Ob (olfactory bulb), Hb.m (medial habenula), P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmental nucleus), R.dtg (dorsal tegmental nucleus of Gudden), R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus), R.rs (reticulospinal), V.mr (median raphe)

Head direction from R.dgt (dorsal tegmental nucleus) tiles R.ip vertically [Petrucco et al 2023], while olfactory and light input is organized horizontally [Chen WY et al 2019], [Zaupa et al 2021]. After combining the odor with the head direction and comparing with the stored values, it sends motor commands to R.rs (reticulospinal) using P.ldt (laterodorsal tegmental nucleus) and V.mr (median raphe). The vertebrate R.ip has 6 columns of head direction input from R.dtg, resembling the Drosophila fan-shaped body, but instead of 18 columns for the fan-shaped body, R.ip only has 6, three to a side [Petrucco et al 2023].

Essay 25 explored a model which used the Drosophila fan-shaped body allocentric navigation in R.ip with some limited but not overwhelming success. Instead, this essay will try a different interpretation, where R.ip is only storing side to side weathervaning of the head while swimming, instead of a full 360 degree table like Drosophila.

Vertebrate klinotaxis

As a different approach, suppose the head direction to R.ip is not an allocentric map-making coordinator as in the adult Drosophila, but a simpler egocentric weathervaning or casting coordinator, storing only the lateral gradient from head direction changes from natural swimming, or possibly deliberate larger turns like casting to gather wider lateral gradient information.

Klinotaxis simplifies the need for precise head direction. Instead of the Drosophila 18 head direction columns calibrated to the outside world, we use only three, two lateral and one central, that only require motor efference copies of left and right muscle turns. Studies from the zebrafish R.ip suggest three columns to a side, which isn’t connected to the vestibular system [Petrucco et al 2023]. To me, this suggests to me that the head direction might not be an allocentric signal that requires precise direction, but a simple egocentric lateral measurement, which doesn’t need vestibular information.

Vertebrate thigmotaxis circuit. Hb.m (medial habenula), Ob (olfactory bulb), R.dtg (dorsal tegmental nucleus), R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus).

The above diagram illustrates the system. Olfactory samples arrive through Hb.mand head direction arrives from R.dtg. Like the Drosophila fan-shaped body, R.ip combines odor samples with lateral head movement into a simple memory table, and it reads out left and right motor commands. A similar system can save odor measurements parallel to body movement, using velocity instead of head direction, to trigger a u-turn when the animal is moving away from the odor.

Discussion

Compared to the parallel-only gradient, allocentric system of essay 25, this lateral navigation is far simpler and more effective. Even with only three bins compared to the 8 bins in essay 25, the lateral weathervaning turned out to be more effective and less brittle. If R.ip does implement a lateral klinotaxis system like this essay, it’s plausible that the 6 directions reported by [Westeinde et al 2024] are sufficient for accurate seek navigation. In contract, those 6 directions seem insufficient for an allocentric navigation compared to the Drosophila 18 directions.

Interestingly, the pirouette also highly effective, even without lateral klinotaxis. In the simulation, when the animal moved away from the odor source, it makes a u-turn. This system served to ratchet the animal closer and closer to the target. Even when most of the movement was random, the pirouette locks in any improvement. Pirouette itself is also simple, only requiring two averages: a short average and a long average, where a short average tracks the odor across a single swim cycle and a long average uses two swim cycles. When the short average has a stronger odor value than the long average, the animal is moving toward the odor.

In both cases, the simulation used a binary OFF for the motor command instead of attempting finer precision from the gradient. This simple OFF strategy was sufficient for the simulation. A C. elegans study suggested that ON-OFF coding was energy efficient, and the worm rarely orients perfectly to the gradient [Lockery 2011].

References

Chen WY, Peng XL, Deng QS, Chen MJ, Du JL, Zhang BB. Role of Olfactorily Responsive Neurons in the Right Dorsal Habenula-Ventral Interpeduncular Nucleus Pathway in Food-Seeking Behaviors of Larval Zebrafish. Neuroscience. 2019 Apr 15;404:259-267. 

Chen X, Engert F. Navigational strategies underlying phototaxis in larval zebrafish. Front Syst Neurosci. 2014 Mar 25;8:39.

Gomez-Marin A., Louis M. (2014). Multilevel control of run orientation in Drosophila larval chemotaxis. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8:38 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00038.

Hulse, B. K., Haberkern, H., Franconville, R., Turner-Evans, D., Takemura, S. Y., Wolff, T., … & Jayaraman, V. (2021). A connectome of the Drosophila central complex reveals network motifs suitable for flexible navigation and context-dependent action selection. Elife, 10.

Iino Y, Yoshida K. Parallel use of two behavioral mechanisms for chemotaxis in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci. 2009 Apr 29;29(17):5370-80. 

Karpenko S, Wolf S, Lafaye J, Le Goc G, Panier T, Bormuth V, Candelier R, Debrégeas G. From behavior to circuit modeling of light-seeking navigation in zebrafish larvae. Elife. 2020 Jan 2;9:e52882. 

Lockery SR. The computational worm: spatial orientation and its neuronal basis in C. elegans. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2011 Oct;21(5):782-90. 

Martinez D. Klinotaxis as a basic form of navigation. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Aug 14;8:275. 

Palieri V, Paoli E, Wu YK, Haesemeyer M, Grunwald Kadow IC, Portugues R. The preoptic area and dorsal habenula jointly support homeostatic navigation in larval zebrafish. Curr Biol. 2024 Feb 5;34(3):489-504.e7.

Petrucco L, Lavian H, Wu YK, Svara F, Štih V, Portugues R. Neural dynamics and architecture of the heading direction circuit in zebrafish. Nat Neurosci. 2023 May;26(5):765-773. 

Westeinde EA, Kellogg E, Dawson PM, Lu J, Hamburg L, Midler B, Druckmann S, Wilson RI. Transforming a head direction signal into a goal-oriented steering command. Nature. 2024 Feb;626(8000):819-826. 

Zaupa M, Naini SMA, Younes MA, Bullier E, Duboué ER, Le Corronc H, Soula H, Wolf S, Candelier R, Legendre P, Halpern ME, Mangin JM, Hong E. Trans-inhibition of axon terminals underlies competition in the habenulo-interpeduncular pathway. Curr Biol. 2021 Nov 8;31(21):4762-4772.e5. 

Zhao W, Gong C, Ouyang Z, Wang P, Wang J, Zhou P, Zheng N, Gong Z. Turns with multiple and single head cast mediate Drosophila larval light avoidance. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 11;12(7):e0181193. 

Essay 31: Striatum as Timeout

Let’s return to the task of essay 16 on give-up time in foraging, which covered food search with a timeout. At first the animal uses a general roaming search and if it smells a food odor, it switches to a targeted seek following the odor with chemotaxis. If the animal finds food in the odor plume, it eats the food, but if it doesn’t find food, it will eventually give up and avoid the local area before returning to the roaming search.

Search state machine. Roam is the starting state, switching to seek when it detects odor, and switching to avoid after a timeout.

For another attempt at the problem, let’s take the striatum (basal ganglia) as implementing the timeout portion of this task using the neurotransmitter adenosine as a timeout signal and incorporating the multiple action path discussion from essay 30 on RTPA. Adenosine is a byproduct of ATP breakdown and is a measure of cellular activity. With sufficiently high adenosine, the striatum switches from the active seek path to an avoidance path. These circuits are where caffeine works to suppress the adenosine timeout, allowing for longer concentration.

Mollusk navigation

As mentioned in essay 30, the mollusk sea slug has a food search circuit with a similar logic to what we need here. The animal seeks food odors when it’s hungry, but it avoids food odors when it’s not hungry [Gillette and Brown 2015].

Mollusk food search circuit, modulated by hunger.
Mollusk food search circuit, illustrating a hunger-modulated switchboard. When the animal is not hungry, the switchboard reverses the odor to motor links turning it away from food.

This essay uses the same idea but replaces the hunger modulation with a timeout. When the timeout occurs, the circuit switches from a food seek action path to a food avoid action path.

Odor action paths

Two odor-following actions paths exist in the lamprey, one using Hb.m (medial habenula) and one using V.pt (posterior tuberculum). The Hb.m path is a chemotaxis path following a temporal gradient. The V.pt path projects to MLR (midbrain locomotor region), but The lamprey Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb) projects to both Hb.m (medial habenula) and to V.pt (posterior tuberculum), which each project to different locomotor paths [Derjean et all 2010], Hb.m to R.ip (interpeduncular nucleus) and V.pt to MLR (midbrain locomotor region). The zebrafish also has Ob projections to Hb and V.pt [Imamura et al 2020], [Kermen et al 2013].

Dual odor-seeking action paths in the lamprey and zebrafish. Hb (habenula), Ob.m (medial olfactory bulb), V.pt (posterior tectum).

Further complicating the paths, the Hb.m itself contains both an odor seeking path and an odor avoiding path [Beretta et al 2012], [Chen et al 2019]. Similarly Hb.m has dual action paths for social winning and losing [Okamoto et al 2021]. So, this essay could use the dual paths in Ob.m instead of contrasting Ob.m with V.pt, but the larger contract should make the simulation easier to follow.

This essay’s simulation makes some important simplifications. The Hb to R.ip path is a temporal gradient path used for chemotaxis, phototaxis and thermotaxis. In a real-world marine environment, odor diffusion and water turbulence is much more complicated, producing more clumps and making a simple gradient ascent more difficult [Hengenius et al 2012]. Because this essay is only focused on the switchboard effect, this simplification should be fine.

Striatum action paths with adenosine timeout

The timeout circuit uses the striatum, which has two paths: one selecting the main action, and the second either stopping the action, or selecting an opposing action [Zhai et al 2023]. The two paths are distinguished by their responsiveness to dopamine with S.d1 (striatal projection with D1 G-s stimulating) or S.d2 (striatal projection with D2 G-i inhibiting) marking the active and alternate paths respectively. This model is a simplification of the mammalian striatum where the two paths interact in a more complicated fashion [Cui et al 2013].

Essay odor seek with timeout circuit. The seek path flows from Ob, through S.d1 to P.v to V.pt. The avoid path flows from Obj, though S.d2 to Pv. to Hb. Ad (adenosine), Hb (habenula), Ob (olfactory bulb), Pv (ventral pallidum), S.d1 (striatum D1 projection neuron), S.d2 (striatum D2 projection neuron), V.pt (posterior tuberculum)

As mentioned, the two actions paths are the seek path from Ob to V.pt and the avoid path from Ob to Hb. For the timeout and switchboard, the Ob has a secondary projection to the striatum. Although this circuit is meant as a proto-vertebrate simplification, Ob does project to S.ot (olfactory tubercle) and to the equivalent in zebrafish [Kermen et al 2013].

The timeout is managed by adenosine, which is a neurotransmitter derived from ATP and a measure of neural activity. The striatum has three sub-circuits for this kind of functionality, which I’ll cover in order of complexity.

S.d1 and adenosine inhibition

The first circuit only uses the direct S.d1 path and adenosine as a timeout mechanism. When the animal follows an odor, the Ob to S.d1 signal enables the seek action. As a timeout, ATP from neural activity degrades to adenosine and the buildup of adenosine is a decent measure of activity over time. The longer the animal seeks, the more adenosine builds up. Of the Ob projection axis contains an A1i (adenosine G-i inhibitory) receptor, the adenosine will inhibit the release of glutamate from Ob, which will eventually self-disable the seek action.

S.d1 action path inhibited by adenosine buildup as a timeout. A1i (adenosine G-i inhibitory receptor), Ad (adenosine), mGlu5q (metabotropic glutamate G-q receptor), Ob (olfactory bulb), S.d1 (D1-type striatal projection neuron)

In practice, the striatum uses astrocytes to manage the glutamate release. An astrocyte that envelops the synapse measures glutamate release with an mGlu5q (metabotropic glutamate with G-q/11 binding) receptor and accumulates internal calcium [Cavaccini et al 2020]. The astrocyte’s calcium triggers an adenosine release as a gliotransmitter, making the adenosine level a timeout measure of glutamate activity. The presynaptic A1i receptor then inhibits the Ob signal. The timeframe is on the order of 5 to 20 minutes with a recovery of about 60 minutes, although the precise timing is probably variable. Interestingly, the time-out is a log function instead of linear measure of activity [Ma et al 2022].

This circuit doesn’t depend on the postsynaptic S.d1 firing [Cavaccini et al 2020], which contrasts with the next LTD (long term depression) circuit which only inhibits the axon if the S.d1 projection neuron fires.

S.d1 presynaptic LTD using eCB

S.d1 self-activating LTD uses retrotransmission to inhibit its own input using eCB (endocannabiniods) as a neurotransmitter. Like the astrocyte in the previous circuit, S.d1 uses a mGlu5q receptor to trigger eCB release, but also require that S.d1 fire, as triggered by NMDA glutamate receptor. The axon receives the eCB retrotransmission with a CB1i (cannabinoid G-i inhibitory) receptor and trigger presynaptic LTD [Shen et al 2008], [Wu et al 2015]. Like the previous circuit, the timeframe seems to be on the order of 10 minutes, lasting for 30 to 60 minutes.

S.d1 LTD circuit. A coincidence of glutamate detection with mGlu5q and S.d1 activation with NMDA triggers eCB release, which activates CB1i leading to presynaptic LTD. CB1i (cannabinoid G-i inhibitory receptor), mGlu5q (glutamate G-q receptor), Ob (olfactory bulb), S.d1 (striatum D1-type projection neuron).

This circuit inhibits itself over time without using adenosine or astrocytes. In the full striatum circuit, high dopamine levels suppress this LTD suppression, meaning that dopamine inhibits the timeout [Shen et al 2008].

The next circuit adds the S.d2 path, which uses adenosine and self-activity to trigger postsynaptic LTD.

S.d2 postsynaptic LTP via A2a.s

Consider a third circuit that has the benefits of both previous circuits because it uses adenosine as a timer managed by astrocytes and is also specific to postsynaptic activity. In addition, it allows for a second action path, changing the circuit from a Go/NoGo system to a Go/Avoid action pair. This circuit uses LTP (long term potentiation) on the S.d2 striatum neurons.

Timeout circuit using postsynaptic LTD at the S.d2 neuron and adenosine as a timeout signal. As adenosine accumulates, it stimulates S.d2, which both disables S.d1 and drives the avoid path. A2a.s (adenosine G-s stimulatory receptor), Ad (adenosine), mGlu5q (glutamate G-q metabotropic receptor), Ob (olfactory bulb), S.d1 (striatum D1-type projection neuron), S.d2 (striatum D2-type projection neuron)

When the odor first arrives, Ob activates the S.d1 path, seeking toward the odor. S.d1 is activated instead of S.d2 because of dopamine. In this simple model, the Ob itself could provide the initial dopamine like c. elegans odor-detecting neurons or the tunicate’s coronal cells or the dual glutamate and dopamine neurons in Vta (ventral tegmental area).

As time goes on, adenosine from the astrocyte builds up, which activates the S.d2 A2s.a (adenosine G-s stimulatory receptor) until it overcomes dopamine suppression and increases the S.d2 activity with LTP [Shen et al 2008]. Once S.d2 activates, it suppresses S.d1 [Chen et al 2023] and drives the avoid path.

The combination of these circuits looks like it’s precisely what the essay needs.

Simulation

In the simulation, when the animal is hunting food and finds a food odor plume, it directly seeks toward the center and eats if it find food. In the screenshot below, the animal is eating.

Simulation showing the animal eating food after seeking the odor plume.

Satiation disables the food seek. This might sound obvious, but hunger gating of food seeking requires specific satiety circuits to any seek path that’s food specific, which means the involvement of H.l (lateral hypothalamus) and related areas like H.arc (arcuate hypothalamus) and H.pv (periventricular hypothalamus). And, of course, the simulation requires simulation code to only enable food odor seek when the animal is searching for food.

The next screenshot shows the central problem of the essay, when the animal seeks a food odor but there’s no food at the center.

Screenshot showing the animal stuck in the middle of the food odor plume before the timeout.

Without a timeout, the animal circles the center of the food odor plume endlessly. After a timeout, the animal actively leaves the plume and avoid that specific odor until the timeout decays.

Screenshot showing the animal escaping from the odor plume after the timeout.

This system is somewhat complex because of the need for hysteresis. A too-simple solution with a single threshold can oscillate, because as soon as the animal starts leaving the timeout decays, which then re-enables the food-seek, which then quickly times out, repeating. Instead, the system needs to make re-enabling of the food seek more difficult after a timeout.

But that adds a secondary issue because if food seek is a lower threshold, then the sustain of seek needs to raise the threshold while the seek occurs. So, the sustain of seek needs a lower threshold than starting seek. This hysteresis and seek sustain presumably needs to be handled by the actual striatum circuit.

Discussion

I think this essay shows that using the stratum for an action timeout for food seek is a plausible application. The circuit is relatively simple and is effective, improving search by avoiding failed areas.

However, the simulation does raise some issues, particularly hysteresis problem. If the striatum does provide a timeout along these lines, it must somehow solve the hysteresis problem. While the animal is seeking, the ongoing LTP/LTD inhibition should use a high threshold to stop seeking, but once avoidance starts, there needs to be a high threshold to return to seeking to avoid oscillations between the two action paths.

Because LTD/LTP is a relatively long chemical process (minutes) internal to the neurons, as opposed to an instant switch in the simulation, the delay itself might be sufficient to solve the oscillation problem. It’s also possible that some of the more complicated parts of the circuit, such as P.ge (globus pallidus) and its feedback to the striatum or H.stn (subthalamic nucleus) might affect the sustain of seek or breaking it and so control the hysteresis problem.

The simulation also reinforced the absolute requirement that action paths need to be modulated by internal state like hunger. For the seek paths, both Hb.m and V.pt are heavily modulated by H.l and other hypothalamic hunger and satiety signals.

As expected, the simulation also illustrated the need for context information separate from the target odor. While the food odor is timed out, the animal can’t search the other odor plume because this essay’s animal can’t distinguish between the odor plumes, and therefore avoids both odors. With a long timeout and many odor plumes, this delays the food search. A future enhancement is to add context to the timeout. If the animal can timeout a specific odor plume, it can search alternatives even if the food odor itself is identical.

References

Beretta CA, Dross N, Guiterrez-Triana JA, Ryu S, Carl M. Habenula circuit development: past, present, and future. Front Neurosci. 2012 Apr 23;6:51. 

Cavaccini A, Durkee C, Kofuji P, Tonini R, Araque A. Astrocyte Signaling Gates Long-Term Depression at Corticostriatal Synapses of the Direct Pathway. J Neurosci. 2020 Jul 22;40(30):5757-5768. 

Chen JF, Choi DS, Cunha RA. Striatopallidal adenosine A2A receptor modulation of goal-directed behavior: Homeostatic control with cognitive flexibility. Neuropharmacology. 2023 Mar 15;226:109421. 

Chen WY, Peng XL, Deng QS, Chen MJ, Du JL, Zhang BB. Role of Olfactorily Responsive Neurons in the Right Dorsal Habenula-Ventral Interpeduncular Nucleus Pathway in Food-Seeking Behaviors of Larval Zebrafish. Neuroscience. 2019 Apr 15;404:259-267. 

Cui G, Jun SB, Jin X, Pham MD, Vogel SS, Lovinger DM, Costa RM. Concurrent activation of striatal direct and indirect pathways during action initiation. Nature. 2013 Feb 14;494(7436):238-42.

Derjean D, Moussaddy A, Atallah E, St-Pierre M, Auclair F, Chang S, Ren X, Zielinski B, Dubuc R. A novel neural substrate for the transformation of olfactory inputs into motor output. PLoS Biol. 2010 Dec 21;8(12):e1000567. 

Gillette R, Brown JW. The Sea Slug, Pleurobranchaea californica: A Signpost Species in the Evolution of Complex Nervous Systems and Behavior. Integr Comp Biol. 2015 Dec;55(6):1058-69. 

Hengenius JB, Connor EG, Crimaldi JP, Urban NN, Ermentrout GB. Olfactory navigation in the real world: Simple local search strategies for turbulent environments. J Theor Biol. 2021 May 7;516:110607.

Imamura F, Ito A, LaFever BJ. Subpopulations of Projection Neurons in the Olfactory Bulb. Front Neural Circuits. 2020 Aug 28;14:561822. 

Kermen F, Franco LM, Wyatt C, Yaksi E. Neural circuits mediating olfactory-driven behavior in fish. Front Neural Circuits. 2013 Apr 11;7:62.

Ma L, Day-Cooney J, Benavides OJ, Muniak MA, Qin M, Ding JB, Mao T, Zhong H. Locomotion activates PKA through dopamine and adenosine in striatal neurons. Nature. 2022 Nov;611(7937):762-768.

Okamoto H, Cherng BW, Nakajo H, Chou MY, Kinoshita M. Habenula as the experience-dependent controlling switchboard of behavior and attention in social conflict and learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2021 Jun;68:36-43. 

Shen W, Flajolet M, Greengard P, Surmeier DJ. Dichotomous dopaminergic control of striatal synaptic plasticity. Science. 2008 Aug 8;321(5890):848-51. 

Wu YW, Kim JI, Tawfik VL, Lalchandani RR, Scherrer G, Ding JB. Input- and cell-type-specific endocannabinoid-dependent LTD in the striatum. Cell Rep. 2015 Jan 6;10(1):75-87. 

Zhai S, Cui Q, Simmons DV, Surmeier DJ. Distributed dopaminergic signaling in the basal ganglia and its relationship to motor disability in Parkinson’s disease. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2023 Dec;83:102798.

Essay 26: Ignoring distracting odors

I’ve been ignoring distracting cues in the previous essays for simplification. Since the simulated animal only encountered a single odor at a time, it never needed to select one and ignore the other. In essay 26, I’ll implement a very simple first approximation to ignoring distractors, using the P.bf (basal forebrain) control of the Ob (olfactory bulb) as a switchboard to let the selected odor through and inhibit the ignored distractor.

Simulated animal (triangle) encountering two odor plumes (circles).

In the diagram above, the animal (triangle) is seeking food using the purple odor cue as a gradient direction. When it encounters the distractor odor in blue, it should ignore the distractor, otherwise the two odors will mingle into an incorrect summed gradient and the animal will seek in the wrong direction [Cisek 2022].

Temporal chemotaxis

For essay 26, I’m switching chemotaxis (odor seeking) to use the apical temporal gradient search, using Hb.m (medial habenula) and B.ip (interpeduncular nucleus) like the phototaxis in essay 24. The apical system follows the chimera brain model of [Tosches and Arendt 2013], which suggests that odor senses and actions are distinct systems from bilateral tactile senses. For the essays, the shift is from a bilateral, Braitenberg-like [Braitenberg 1984] system to a modulated random walk like the bacterial tumble-and-run.

Olfactory tumble-and-run system using Hb.m and B.ip for temporal gradient direction, and B.rs for the modulated random walk. B.ip interpeduncular nucleus, B.rs hindbrain reticulospinal motor area, Hb.m medial habenula, Ob olfactory bulb.

The above diagram shows the problem with distractor odors. Because the tumble-and-run system uses a single temporal gradient, it necessarily adds both odors together for its input. The summed input goes to the Hb.m (medial habenula) and B.ip (interpeduncular nucleus) system to modulate the random walk direction.

When the animal crosses into the overlapping distractor odor, it will follow the combined signal, distracted from the original seek target. To avoid distraction, the system can either amplify the current odor A, or inhibit the distractors like odor B.

Analogy with nucleus isthmi

An earlier essay 19 also had an attention / distractor problem, with a different issue of action consistency, and used a zebrafish circuit in P.ni (nucleus isthmi) as a solution. In larval zebrafish P.ni works together with OT (optic tectum) to sustain attention on prey during a hunt [Henriques et al 2019]. P.ni is an ACh (acetylcholine neurotransmitter) and GABA (inhibiting neurotransmitter) system that both amplifies the predicted prey location and inhibits surrounding areas.

Nucleus isthmi circuit as adapted by essay 19. ACh acetylcholine, OT optic tectum, Pni nucleus isthmi.

In the above diagram for the essay 19 circuit, a simultaneous left and right touch would select one action at random and sustain that choice for subsequent movement with the P.ni positive feedback circuit. The outputs are crossed because it’s an avoidance circuit: an obstacle on the left triggers a right turn.

Importantly, the positive feedback is modulatory; it doesn’t trigger an action by itself. At a synapse level, ACh triggers mAChR (ACh metabotropic receptor, Gs stimulatory type) on the sensor axon, amplifying the sensor’s neurotransmitter release. The ACh and mAChR act as the decay timer, because they have a slow time constant on the order of a few seconds. If the sensor doesn’t stimulate the circuit, as when successfully avoiding the obstacle, the attention will decay over a few seconds, resetting the system to its original state.

A similar function applies to Ob and P.bf (basal forebrain), where P.bf acts like P.ni to sustain attention to the selected odor. “Basal forebrain” is a general name for a collection of functionally-related subcortical areas in the ventral (“basal”) forebrain, all pallidal-like (P). The specific P areas for the Ob are P.hdb (horizontal diagonal band) and Po.me (magnocellular preoptic area), but I’ll use P.bf for simplicity.

Olfactory bulb as a switchboard

In this model, Ob acts like a switchboard controlled by P.bf. P.bf selects attended odor paths in Ob, where Ob either passes the odor signal to its destination or inhibits the signal if it’s a distractor. P.bf opens and closes gated circuits in Ob.

Although the architecture of the Ob and P.bf circuit resembles the P.ni circuit, Ob appears to rely more heavily on inhibitory GABA for the gating operation, although ACh is also important [Böhm et al 2020], [de Saint Jan et al 2020], [Nunez-Parra et al 2000]. Since this essay is a first cut, simplified model, I’m using a single signal that represents a gating attention / inhibition signal, and glossing over the ACh vs GABA distinction.

Olfactory bulb switchboard using basal forebrain to gate selected odors. B.ip interpeduncular nucleus, B.rs reticulospinal motor, Hb.m medial habenula, Omt mitral/tufted output cells, Osn olfactory sensor neurons, P.bf basal forebrain.

In the above diagram where the switchboard selects odor A and inhibits odor B, the apical seek circuit receives only odor A’s signal. P.bf gates odors from Osn (olfactory sensory neurons) to Omt (mitral/tufted output cells), which then add to form a single signal for the temporal gradient tumble-and-run seek. For simplicity, I’ve shown the P.bf ACh and GABA signal as a simple gating control.

Once the system detects odor A, P.bf configures the switchboard to pass through A and inhibit other odors, locking out the distractor. Because the selecting signals are modulators, they don’t drive a signal until an odor signal arrives. Like the P.ni circuit, attention will timeout as ACh and its slow mACh receptor decay. When the animal leaves the odor plume, the system resets because the absence of odor A collapses the feedback loop.

Although the essay’s switchboard is an improvement over the naive summation of odor signals, it’s still quite limited. There’s no active selection of a best odor, and the system can’t switch to a better odor cue. Also, since the global give-up circuit isn’t integrated with P.bf, giving up on odor A can’t select odor B. Instead the animal must leave the plume and reset the system.

Slightly more complete Ob switchboard

The Ob is a surprisingly complex system; it’s not just a simple odor system. In addition to the P.bf, Opir (olfactory piriform cortex) also modulates the Ob system, and Ob itself has lateral inhibition between Omt (mitral cell output), which is plastic, learning to discriminate odors itself, as well as modulatory input from the serotonin and noradrenaline system.

In the real Ob, many Osn for the same odor feed into a single Ogl (olfactory glomeruli), which provides input to several Omt, all representing the same odor. Each odor feature has its own Ogl system, several hundred in mammals (two in the essay simulation). Ogl is where the neuropil of the Osn axons meet the Omt dendrites, in a fan-in to fan-out system. Also, each Ogl has many inhibitory Opg (periglomerular inhibitors) with multiple variations, and each Omt has several inhibitory Ogc (olfactory granule cells). The basic fan-in and fan-out structure looks like the following diagram.

Olfactory bulb glomerule fan-in and fan-out system. Bip interpeduncular nucleus, B.rs reticulospinal motor, Hb.m medial habenula, Ogc olfactory granule cell inhibitor, Ogl olfactory glomerule, Omt olfactory mitral/tufted output, Opg olfactory periglomerular inhibitor, Osn olfactory sensor neuron.

The switchboard diagram below focuses on the ACh and GABA control from P.bf. It combines multiple Osn, Opg, Omt and Ogc into single items.

Partial olfactory bulb switchboard circuit. B.ip interpeduncular nucleus, B.rs reticulospinal motor, Hb.m medial habenula, Ogc olfactory granule cell, Ogl olfactory glomeruli, Omt olfactory mitral/tufted output, Opg olfactory periglomerular inhibitor, Opir olfactory piriform cortex, Osn olfactory sensory neuron.

To break down the diagram, the core of the switchboard circuit is the Osn to Ogl to Omt to output path; everything else is gating to select or inhibit the signal.

Odor gating happens in two locations: modulating Omt’s input dendrite tree in Ogl by Opg and modulating Omt’s output by Ogc (olfactory granular cell). Because each Omt’s input Ogl is shared for several Omt, the Opg inhibition likely affects many or all Omt for a single Ogl. In contrast, the Ogc inhibition is individual, and the Omt and Ogc circuit creates and manages gamma oscillations, which amplifies and reduces noise from the signal.

Although I’m not planning on touching cortical areas for many essays, the Opir (olfactory piriform cortex) modules the Ob switchboard in a similar circuit as B.pf with some difference. Since the Opir input to the many Ogc and many Ogl is not odor selective [Boyd et al 2015], Ogc must learn the meaning of the Opir input through plasticity.

Global give-up circuit

The essay’s task engagement and give-up circuit currently uses H.l (lateral hypothalamus) and Hb.l (lateral habenula) with V.dr (dorsal raphe serotonin) [Hikosaka 2010], [Chowdhury and Yamanaka 2016]. When a seek fails Hb.l suppresses H.l, H.l ends seek, and the animal moves on [Post et al 2022].

Global give-up circuit. H.l lateral hypothalamus, Hb.l lateral habenula, V.dr dorsal raphe, 5HT serotonin.

Because the global give-up circuit is entirely disconnected from the olfactory selective attention from the essay, giving up means giving up on all odors, not just the current attended odor.

Simulation

For this essay, I refactored much of the simulation code to clean up ideas from previous essays. A new hindbrain module manages the main locomotion like the zebrafish hindbrain motor area [Dunn et al 2016], which is possibly different from the tetrapod / amniote locomotion in the midbrain. Because the essay animal is currently more primitive than amniotes, this simplification seemed appropriate and makes the code organization more clear.

Olfactory locomotion is now random-walk based following apical tumble-and-run, as opposed to the earlier bilateral path through Vta (ventral tegmental area / posterior tuberculum) and OT (tectum). In zebrafish both paths exist, which I might explore later, but this essay is restricted to the apical temporal gradient search.

The seek mode now slows the animal and adjusts the Levy walk parameters to simulate ARS (area restricted search). As I’ll cover in the problems section, switching to seek mode is still hardcoded.

I split the habenula seek from habenula give-up (Hb.m from Hb.l) and pulled the gradient seek and head direction from B.ip into the habenula seek. Conceptually, the habenula seek code now represents Hb.m and B.ip as a single complex.

Simulated odor seeking with target attention and distractor inhibition.

In the screenshot above, the animal is making a u-turn to return to the food when the odor gradient (blue semicircle) is opposite the head direction (black semicircle). In the upper right, the green box outlined in red represents the attended green odor signal, while the white box outline in blue represents the suppressed blue odor. Despite the Osn naively sensing both blue and green odors because the animal is in the overlap area, only the green odor passes through Omt to the seek system.

The square borders around the odor color represent P.bf modulation. Red is attended (100% pass through), blue is inhibited (10% pass through), and grey is unmodulated (50% pass through).

In the diamond-shaped homunculus, the bright blue triangle represents the u-turn nudge.

As the goal vector shows, the guessed goal direction isn’t very accurate, particularly when the animal is making a turn. Currently, the animal continues to update its guess even in the middle of a turn when the odor data and averages are not appropriate for the current direction.

References

Böhm E, Brunert D, Rothermel M. Input dependent modulation of olfactory bulb activity by HDB GABAergic projections. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 1;10(1):10696. 

Boyd AM, Kato HK, Komiyama T, Isaacson JS. Broadcasting of cortical activity to the olfactory bulb. Cell Rep. 2015 Feb 24;10(7):1032-9.

Braitenberg, V. (1984). Vehicles: Experiments in synthetic psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. “Vehicles – the MIT Press”

Chowdhury S, Yamanaka A. Optogenetic activation of serotonergic terminals facilitates GABAergic inhibitory input to orexin/hypocretin neurons. Sci Rep. 2016;6:36039

Cisek P. Evolution of behavioural control from chordates to primates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Feb 14

De Saint Jan D. Target-specific control of olfactory bulb periglomerular cells by GABAergic and cholinergic basal forebrain inputs. Elife. 2022 Feb 28;11:e71965.

Dunn, Timothy, Yu Mu, Sujatha Narayan, Owen Randlett, Eva A Naumann, Chao-Tsung Yang, Alexander F Schier, Jeremy Freeman, Florian Engert, Misha B Ahrens (2016) Brain-wide mapping of neural activity controlling zebrafish exploratory locomotion eLife 5:e12741

Henriques PM, Rahman N, Jackson SE, Bianco IH. Nucleus Isthmi Is Required to Sustain Target Pursuit during Visually Guided Prey-Catching. Curr Biol. 2019 Jun 3;29(11):1771-1786.e5. 

Hikosaka O. The habenula: from stress evasion to value-based decision-making. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jul;11(7):503-13. 

Nunez-Parra A, Cea-Del Rio CA, Huntsman MM, Restrepo D. The Basal Forebrain Modulates Neuronal Response in an Active Olfactory Discrimination Task. Front Cell Neurosci. 2020 Jun 5;14:141. 

Post RJ, Bulkin DA, Ebitz RB, Lee V, Han K, Warden MR. Tonic activity in lateral habenula neurons acts as a neutral valence brake on reward-seeking behavior. Curr Biol. 2022 Oct 24;32(20):4325-4336.e5.

Tosches, Maria Antonietta, and Detlev Arendt. The bilaterian forebrain: an evolutionary chimaera. Current opinion in neurobiology 23.6 (2013): 1080-1089.