Back

Localized Space Coding and Phase Coding Complement Each Other to Achieve Robust and Efficient Spatial Representation

Chu, T.; Wu, Y.; Qiu, W.; Jiang, Z.; Burgess, N.; HONG, B.; WU, S.

2025-09-12 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.09.07.674775 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Localized space coding and phase coding are two distinct strategies responsible, respectively, for representing abstract structure and sensory observations in neural cognitive maps. In spatial representation, localized space coding is implemented by place cells in the hippocampus (HPC), while phase coding is implemented by grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC). Both strategies have their own advantages and disadvantages, and neither of them meets the requirement of representing space robustly and efficiently in the brain. Here, we show that through reciprocal connections between HPC and MEC, place and grid cells can complement each other to overcome their respective shortcomings. Specifically, we build a coupled network model, in which a continuous attractor neural network (CANN) with position coordinate models place cells, while multiple CANNs with phase coordinates model grid cell modules with varying spacings. The reciprocal connections between place and grid cells encode the correlation prior between the sensory cues processed by HPC and MEC, respectively. Using this model, we show that: 1) place and grid cells interact to integrate sensory cues in a Bayesian manner; 2) place cells complement grid cells in coding accuracy by eliminating non-local errors of the latter; 3) grid cells complement place cells in coding efficiency by enlarging the number of environmental maps stored stably by the latter. We demonstrate that the coupled network model explains the seemingly contradictory experimental findings about the remapping phenomena of place cells when grid cells are either inactivated or depolarized. This study gives us insight into understanding how the brain employs collaborative localized and phase coding to realize both robust and efficient information representation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.3%
2
Neural Networks
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Neurocomputing
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
6
Neural Computation
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.7%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
8
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.9%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 31%
2.8%
10
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 27%
2.1%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
12
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
15
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.1%
16
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
17
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.0%
18
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
19
Physical Review E
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
Cognitive Neurodynamics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
21
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Physical Review Research
46 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
24
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
25
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.5%
26
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
Entropy
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
28
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%