scholarly journals Neurons in primate entorhinal cortex represent gaze position in multiple spatial reference frames

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam L. R. Meister ◽  
Elizabeth A. Buffalo

AbstractPrimates predominantly rely on vision to gather information from the environment, and neurons representing visual space and gaze position are found in many brain areas. Within the medial temporal lobe, a brain region critical for memory, neurons in the entorhinal cortex of macaque monkeys exhibit spatial selectivity for gaze position. Specifically, the firing rate of single neurons reflects fixation location within a visual image (Killian et al., 2012). In the rodents, entorhinal cells such as grid cells, border cells, and head direction cells show spatial representations aligned to visual environmental features instead of the body (Hafting et al., 2005, Solstad et al. 2008, Sargolini et al., 2006, Diehl et al., 2017). However, it is not known whether similar allocentric representations exist in primate entorhinal cortex. Here, we recorded neural activity in the entorhinal cortex in two male rhesus monkeys during a naturalistic, free-viewing task. Our data reveal that a majority of entorhinal neurons represent gaze position, and that simultaneously recorded neurons exhibit distinct spatial reference frames, with some neurons aligning to the visual image and others aligning to the monkey’s head position. Our results also show that entorhinal neural activity can be used to predict gaze position with a high degree of accuracy. These findings demonstrate that visuospatial representation is a fundamental property of entorhinal neurons in primates, and suggest that entorhinal cortex may support relational memory and motor planning by coding attentional locus in distinct, behaviorally relevant frames of reference.Significance StatementThe entorhinal cortex, a brain area important for memory, shows striking spatial activity in rodents through grid cells, border cells, head direction cells, and nongrid spatial cells. The majority of entorhinal neurons signal the location of a rodent relative to visual environmental cues, representing the location of the animal relative to space in the world instead of the body. Recently, our laboratory found that entorhinal neurons can signal location of gaze while a monkey visually explores images. Here, we report that spatial entorhinal neurons are widespread in the monkey, and these neurons are capable of showing a world-based spatial reference frame locked to the bounds of explored images. These results help connect the extensive findings in rodents to the primate.




2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Vanderclausen ◽  
Louise Manfron ◽  
Anne De Volder ◽  
Valéry Legrain

AbstractLocalizing pain is an important process as it allows detecting which part of the body is being hurt and identifying in its surrounding which stimulus is producing the damage. Nociceptive inputs should therefore be mapped according to both somatotopic (“which limb is stimulated?”) and spatiotopic representations (“where is the stimulated limb?”). Since the limbs constantly move in space, the brain has to realign the different spatial representations, for instance when the hands are crossed and the left/right hand is in the right/left part of space, in order to adequately guide actions towards the threatening object. Such ability is thought to be dependent on past sensory experience and contextual factors. This was tested by comparing performances of early blind and normally sighted participants during nociceptive temporal order judgment tasks. The instructions prioritized either anatomy (left/right hands) or the external space (left/right hemispaces). As compared to an uncrossed hands posture, sighted participants’ performances were decreased when the hands were crossed, whatever the instructions. Early blind participants’ performances were affected by crossing the hands only during spatial instruction, but not during anatomical instruction. These results indicate that nociceptive stimuli are automatically coded according to both somatotopic and spatiotopic representations, but the integration of the different spatial reference frames would depend on early visual experience and ongoing cognitive goals, illustrating the plasticity and the flexibility of the nociceptive system.





Author(s):  
Steven M. Weisberg ◽  
Anjan Chatterjee

Abstract Background Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (Absolute reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames (“go north” vs “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.



2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1063-1063
Author(s):  
J. C. Dessing ◽  
J. D. Crawford ◽  
W. P. Medendorp




With “Spatial Reference Frames” we refer to systems of coordinates by which the central nervous system encodes the relative positions of objects in space, including that of the body itself. A reference system is a way of representing the positions of the subjects / objects in space. The spatial position of an object can be represented in the brain with respect to different classes of reference points, which may be related or not to the position of the subject. In a nutshell, we can say that there are two types of transformations of space imagery: the allocentric spatial transformations, that involve a system of representation from object to object and encode information about the location of an object or its parts in relation to other objects, and egocentric spatial transformations that involve a system of subject-object representation. The human being switches from one code to another, depending on the contingent requirements, giving preference to one or another system according to a set of heterogeneous factors. The gender difference (male / female), for example, plays a key role. Even the individual cognitive strategies make use of different representations in a significantly different way. Manipulation of spatial reference systems constitute a “transnosographic trait” in various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Each of these diseases (autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, spatial anxiety, Parkinson) reaches some of the structures involved in the manipulation of referential of different spaces. The chapter illustrates Piaget's study on the representation of space in the child and the use of different spatial coding systems, and provides a brief overview of the scientific debate following the Piagetian position.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document