Attempting a toy model of vertebrate understanding

Tag: subthalamic nucleus

Essay 29: Sleep and Basal Ganglia

The original impetus for this sleep essay was the idea that the basal ganglia could best be understood as a sleep and wake circuit [Kazmierczak and Nicola 2022]. After reviewing the rest of the brainstem sleep circuitry, it’s time to tackle the original problem.

Snr as a sleep/wake gate

Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata) is the output node of the basal ganglia. It’s a set of GABA neurons that tonically suppress the majority of all brainstem motor areas including MLR (midbrain locomotor region), OT (optic tectum), and R.rs (hindbrain reticulospinal motor command) with corollary discharge to the thalamus. Snr can inhibit initiation of eating and motion [Rossi et al 2016], but don’t disrupt ongoing actions [Liu et al 2018]. Disruption of Snr can cause hyperactivity and insomnia [Geraschenko et al 2006]. The caudal Snr derives from hindbrain r1 (rhombomere r1 near the midbrain-hindbrain boundary) [Achim et al 2012], [Lahti et al 2015], [Partanen and Achim 2022], suggesting it may be evolutionarily old, possibly older than other basal ganglia regions.

Sleep as gating motive from action or sleep from action. Wake as disinhibiting sleep. Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata).

As described in part 1 this essay, sleep suppresses senses, motivation and action. To implement this suppression, sleep could disconnect senses and motivation neurons from action neurons. In the above diagram, the gate is conceptual. The circuit could also inhibit the sense or action nodes directly instead of requiring specific gating neurons. This gating architecture has the advantage of simplicity because the sleep circuit can be localized in the gate, while the senses and actions can be mostly free of sleep circuitry.

As a preview, sleep neurotransmitters and peptides in BG (basal ganglia) include AD (adenosine), enk (enkephalin), MOR (μ-opioid receptor), and wake neurotransmitters include DA (dopamine), tac1 (tachykinin 1 aka neurokinin 1 aka substance P), dyn (dynorphin), and DOR (δ-opioid receptor).

If the vertebrate brain follows this architecture, Snr is well-placed to control that gate. Snr.m (medial Snr) projections have many collaterals to distinct motor areas and suppressing the wake-promoting areas covered earlier in this essay, which suggests widespread suppression as opposed to fine-grained control.

Snr.m gad2 connectivity. 60% of Snr.m inputs are from motor, motivation and wake areas. H.l (lateral habenula), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), H.zi (zona incerta), M.pag (periaqueductal gray), OT.m (medial optic tectum), P.ge (external global pallidus), Ppt (pedunculopontine nucleus), R.rs (reticulospinal motor command), S.d (dorsal striatum), Snr.m (medial substantia nigra pars reticulata).

As the above diagram illustrates, despite its description as basal ganglia output, 60% of the gad2 (genetic marker), Snr.m inputs are outside of the basal ganglia, particularly from the midbrain (30%) and hypothalamus (10%) [Liu et al 2020]. Snr.m has two independent neuron types marked by gad2 and pv (parvalbumin), which are topographically organized with gad2 in Snr.m and pv in Snr.l (lateral Snr). While Snr.l.pv seems to be strictly motor related, Snr.m.gad2 are sleep related [Liu et al 2020]. However, [Lai et al 2021] reports Snr.l as sleep related.

Functional sleep and action requirements. Any ongoing action should suppress sleep, and sleep should suppress all actions.

Snr’s widespread motor and motivation connectivity suggests a possible primitive role in sleep. Sleep needs to suppress all actions, but any ongoing action needs to suppress sleep, because an animal shouldn’t fall asleep while eating or moving. It seems plausible that a primitive proto-vertebrate could have used Snr for sleep regulation without needing the rest of the basal ganglia.

Because astrocytes can integrate inputs spatially and temporally and are associated with sleep, it’s plausible that Snr astrocyte would be involved in this circuit. Interestingly Snr astrocytes are sensitive to dopamine and become hyperactive in the absence of dopamine [Bosson et al 2015] and are sensitive to glutamate from H.stn [Barat et al 2015].

Dopamine D2.i sleep / wake circuit

Although the independent Snr circuit is a functional sleep / wake gating circuit, it tonically inhibits the sense to action circuit, adding noise. An improvement to the circuit enables the gate when a signal is available, using the striatum to selectively open the gate. This circuit uses dopamine to open and close the gate. High dopamine is a wake signal and low dopamine is a sleep signal.

In the above diagram, Snr and S.d2 (D2.i associated striatum projection neurons) are sleep-promoting regions and S.d1 (D1.s associated striatum projection neurons) is a wake-promoting region. D2.i (inhibitory Gi-protein dopamine receptor) disconnects inputs, as opposed to inhibiting a neuron directly. When DA is available, S.d2 is disconnected, and S.d1 inhibits Snr, opening the gate. When DA is low, S.d2 is active, which inhibits S.d1, disinhibiting Snr, closing the gate and producing sleep. The D2i between S.d2 and S.d1 is from [Dobbs et al 2016].

The idea of the circuit is that the sense signal disinhibits itself during wake, but sleep prevents sense from disinhibiting itself. The minimal system only requires D2i circuits [Oishi et al 2017]. Wake enables the gate, and sleep disables the gate. Although I’ll cover D1s later, D2i is more fundamental because disabling D1s can be reversed by sufficient arousal, but disabling D2i can’t [Kazmierczak and Nicola 2022].

Note the diagram is somewhat incorrect, because direct S.d2 to S.d1 connection is weak [Tepper 2008]. Instead, S.d2 GABA inhibits S.d1 input at distal dendrites as opposed to inhibiting the neuron soma itself.

P.v ventral pallidum and S.core

While S.d2 neurons in model above suppresses motor for sleep, S.d2 in S.core (ventral striatum core aka nucleus accumbens) can produce sleep pressure by inhibiting the wake supporting P.v (ventral pallidum) [Oishi et al 2017]. P.v is a tonically active, wake-promoting nucleus, primarily inhibiting sleep areas or disinhibiting wake areas.

Sleep/wake control adding P.v as a tonic wake producing node. DA (dopamine), D2i (inhibitory Gi-coupled dopamine receptor), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), Hb.l (lateral habenula), M.pag (periaqueductal gray), Ppt (pedunculopontine nucleus – ACh), P.v (ventral pallidum), S.d1 (D1-associated striatum projection neuron), S.d2 (D2-associated striatum projection neuron), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), V.mr (median raphe – serotonin), Vta (ventral tegmental area – dopamine).

P.v fill a similar wake-promoting role as S.d1, but unlike S.d1 it’s tonically active and affects the motivation loop of H.l, Hb.l, and Vta instead of gating sense from action. Where P.v supports general wake, S.d1 supports specific wake for an action. Like the previous basal ganglia sub-circuit, this sub-circuit only requires D2i receptors.

P.v promotes wake by inhibiting Hb.l sleep-producing system [Li et al 2023]. It also promotes wake through Vta by disinhibiting GABA interneurons [Li et al 2021]. (It could also disinhibit H.l orexin but I don’t have a reference).

In the model above, stimulating S.d2 inhibits wake-producing P.v, which disinhibits sleep-producing areas like Hb.l and inhibits wake-producing areas like H.l and Vta through GABA interneurons. Conversely, stimulating the D2i receptor by high DA inhibits S.d2, which disinhibits Pv, allowing it so promote wake. Disabling the D2i receptor activates S.d2, promoting sleep even with high dopamine [Qu et al 2010].

Note that S.d1 also connects to P.v and can produce wake [Zhang et al 2023]. P.v has multiple sub-populations with opposing functions. For example, it has both a hedonic hot spot for liked food and a cold spot for disliked food [Castro et al 2015]. For the sake of simplicity the diagram only shows a sleep-promoting path through S.d2, but there may be a wake-promoting path through S.d2 to an opposing P.v subpopulation.

D1s – stimulator dopamine receptors

Although using only D2i as a mode switch to the sleep path is functional, it can be improved by also enhancing the wake path with D1s (stimulatory Gs-coupled dopamine receptor).

D1s as enhancing the basal ganglia wake path. DA (dopamine), D1s (stimulatory Gs-coupled dopamine receptor), D2i (inhibitory Gi-coupled dopamine receptor), S.d1 (D1-associated striatum projection neuron), S.d2 (D2-associated striatum projection neuron), Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta – dopamine), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata).

The improved circuit works exactly like the D2i-only circuit but enhances the wake path when DA is available. Dopamine boosts both the signals from the sense to S.d1 and the signal from S.d1 to Snr [Salvatore 2024], [Kliem 2007], [Rice and Patel 2015]. When dopamine is available, it boots the sense to S.d1 signal with D1s, which more strongly disinhibits the gate by inhibiting Snr, which is also boosted by D1s.

The D1s in Snr and dopamine may be more important for motor suppression than dopamine in the striatum [Salvatore 2024]. In Parkinson’s disease and also normal aging, bradykinesia (slow movement) correlates with dopamine in Snr more closely than dopamine in the striatum. Motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease don’t generally occur until striatal dopamine is reduced by 80%, but the effect on Snr is more immediate with only a small drop of dopamine.

Note that the Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta) to Snr dopamine comes from somatodendritic broadcast, not from an axon synapse. Snc dendrites in Snr produce dopamine to enhance the S.d1 to Snr connection.

Although the previous diagrams show the basic logic of the circuit, the basal ganglia use adenosine as a sleep-producing neurotransmitter, competing with dopamine.

Adenosine in striatum sleep

Adenosine is a product of the energy molecule ATP and is produced by neural activity, and also as a astrocyte transmission molecule. Although adenosine can accumulate in a circadian manner, particularly in P.bf (basal forebrain), it’s typically a shorter term sleep pressure. Caffeine is wake promoting by suppressing adenosine receptors.

Dopamine and adenosine are paired, opposing neurotransmitters in the basal ganglia: dopamine produces wake and adenosine promotes sleep. As an opposing signal to dopamine, the adenosine circuit is a flip version of the dopamine circuit.

Parallel adenosine sleep circuit in the basal ganglia. AD (adenosine), A1i (inhibitory Gi-coupled adenosine receptor), A2a.s (stimulatory Gs-coupled adenosine receptor), S.d1 (D1-associated striatum projection neuron), S.d2 (D2-associated striatum projection neuron), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata).

When adenosine is active in the above circuit, it cuts off S.d1 input and output and enhances S.d2’s suppression of S.d1. With S.d2 fully suppressed, Snr is free to suppress the gate and therefore suppress sleeping action.

Since adenosine is low in the morning, sleep is suppressed, which is enhanced by high ultradian morning dopamine. If A2a.s (stimulating Gs-coupled adenosine receptor) are stimulated in the striatum, the animal is more likely to sleep even in the morning [Yuan et al 2017], specifically in S.core not S.sh (ventral striatum shell aka nucleus accumbens) [Oishi et al 2017].

The dual signal system allows for interesting combinations at the boundary between sleep and wake. If adenosine is high with sleep pressing, then a large amount of dopamine motivation is required to continue wake. In fact, sleep deprivation down regulates D2i receptors, moving from the neuron membrane to the interior [Volkow et al 2012], which tips the balance toward sleep by diminishing the D2i-mediated wake signal. Caffeine inhibits both the A1i (inhibitory Gi-coupled adenosine receptor) and A2a.s receptors, tipping the balance to dopamine wake.

Dorsal striatum indirect path

The full S.d (dorsal striatum) path includes an indirect path, but this path may be more related to pure motor control, not sleep. As mentioned above, Snr divides into two populations Snr.l with pv neurons and Snr.m with gad2 neurons, and the Snr.l neurons are motor related, not sleep related [Liu et al 2020]. Similarly, the indirect path including P.ge (external globus pallidus) and H.stn (sub thalamic nucleus) may not be sleep related. Nevertheless, I’ll include it here, in case it is sleep related.

S.d model with indirect path included. DA (dopamine), D1s (stimulatory Gs-coupled dopamine receptor), D2i (inhibitory Gi-coupled dopamine receptor), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), P.ge (external globus pallidus), S.d1 (D1-associated striatum projection neuron), S.d2 (D2-associated striatum projection neuron), Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata).

Note that both P.ge and H.stn are tonically active, and they oscillate together at beta frequencies (roughly 10hz), which suppresses action. An excessive beta oscillation in this P.ge and H.stn circuit is a Parkinson’s disease symptom that suppresses motion and can also interrupt sleep. D2i receptors in H.stn mean that dopamine suppresses H.stn output [Shen et al 2012].

One significant experiment showed that lesioning P.ge increased wake by 40%, particularly eliminating normal circadian night-time sleep, replacing it with day-time like napping [Qiu et al 2016], which would suggest that P.ge is a major sleep center like Po.vl (ventrolateral preoptic area) [Vetrivelan et al 2010]. Note that this analysis would suggest that my basal ganglia sleep diagram is entirely wrong, because P.ge as a sleep center is basically incompatible with its position in the circuit.

P.ge – external globus pallidus

Lesioning P.ge increases wake by 40%, almost entirely eliminating circadian sleep [Qiu et al 2016]. However, this produces hyperactive chewing, weight loss, abnormal motor behavior and death in 3-4 weeks [Vetrivelan et al 2010]. Other manipulations of P.ge produce hyperactivity, abnormal movement, and odd stereotypical behavior [Gittis et al 2014]. So, it’s unclear to me that P.ge is a sleep center, but removing P.ge produces excessive action which then suppresses sleep.

In addition, P.ge is a heterogenous area with at least three major cell types with distinct projections and roles. Arkypallidal neurons project strongly and exclusively to the striatum. Lhx6 neurons project strongly to Snc and to some areas of H.stn, excluding the center. Pv neurons project to all of H.stn and also to T.pf (parafascical thalamus) [Gittis et al 2014].

Distinct projection neuron types of P.ge. H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), P.ge (external globus pallidus), Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), Spn (striatal projection neuron), Spv (pv marked striatum interneuron), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

With three projection types, it’s possible that they have entirely separate functions. For example, the lhx6 projections are functionally compatible with a sleep promoting role, and lhx6 neurons in H.zi (zona incerta) are sleep promoting [Liu et al 2017].

References

Achim K, Peltopuro P, Lahti L, Li J, Salminen M, Partanen J. Distinct developmental origins and regulatory mechanisms for GABAergic neurons associated with dopaminergic nuclei in the ventral mesodiencephalic region. Development. 2012 Jul;139(13):2360-70. 

Barat E, Boisseau S, Bouyssières C, Appaix F, Savasta M, Albrieux M. Subthalamic nucleus electrical stimulation modulates calcium activity of nigral astrocytes. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41793. 

Bosson A, Boisseau S, Buisson A, Savasta M, Albrieux M. Disruption of dopaminergic transmission remodels tripartite synapse morphology and astrocytic calcium activity within substantia nigra pars reticulata. Glia. 2015 Apr;63(4):673-83. 

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. 

Dobbs LK, Kaplan AR, Lemos JC, Matsui A, Rubinstein M, Alvarez VA. Dopamine Regulation of Lateral Inhibition between Striatal Neurons Gates the Stimulant Actions of Cocaine. Neuron. 2016 Jun 1;90(5):1100-13.

Gerashchenko D, Blanco-Centurion CA, Miller JD, Shiromani PJ. Insomnia following hypocretin2-saporin lesions of the substantia nigra. Neuroscience. 2006;137(1):29-36.

Gittis AH, Berke JD, Bevan MD, Chan CS, Mallet N, Morrow MM, Schmidt R. New roles for the external globus pallidus in basal ganglia circuits and behavior. J Neurosci. 2014 Nov 12;34(46):15178-83.

Kaźmierczak M, Nicola SM. The Arousal-motor Hypothesis of Dopamine Function: Evidence that Dopamine Facilitates Reward Seeking in Part by Maintaining Arousal. Neuroscience. 2022 Sep 1;499:64-103. 

Kliem MA, Maidment NT, Ackerson LC, Chen S, Smith Y, Wichmann T. Activation of nigral and pallidal dopamine D1-like receptors modulates basal ganglia outflow in monkeys. J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1489-500.

Lahti L, Haugas M, Tikker L, Airavaara M, Voutilainen MH, Anttila J, Kumar S, Inkinen C, Salminen M, Partanen J. Differentiation and molecular heterogeneity of inhibitory and excitatory neurons associated with midbrain dopaminergic nuclei. Development. 2016 Feb 1;143(3):516-29. 

Lai YY, Kodama T, Hsieh KC, Nguyen D, Siegel JM. Substantia nigra pars reticulata-mediated sleep and motor activity regulation. Sleep. 2021 Jan 21;44(1):zsaa151. 

Li YD, Luo YJ, Xu W, Ge J, Cherasse Y, Wang YQ, Lazarus M, Qu WM, Huang ZL. Ventral pallidal GABAergic neurons control wakefulness associated with motivation through the ventral tegmental pathway. Mol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul;26(7):2912-2928. 

Li Y, Zhang X, Li Y, Li Y, Xu H. Activation of Ventral Pallidum CaMKIIa-Expressing Neurons Promotes Wakefulness. Neurochem Res. 2023 Aug;48(8):2502-2513.

Liu K, Kim J, Kim DW, Zhang YS, Bao H, Denaxa M, Lim SA, Kim E, Liu C, Wickersham IR, Pachnis V, Hattar S, Song J, Brown SP, Blackshaw S. Lhx6-positive GABA-releasing neurons of the zona incerta promote sleep. Nature. 2017 Aug 31;548(7669):582-587. doi: 10.1038/nature23663. Epub 2017 Aug 23.

Liu, D., Ma, C., Zheng, W., Yao, Y., & Dan, Y. (2018). Sleep and motor control by a basal ganglia circuit. BioRxiv, 405324.

Liu D, Li W, Ma C, Zheng W, Yao Y, Tso CF, Zhong P, Chen X, Song JH, Choi W, Paik SB, Han H, Dan Y. A common hub for sleep and motor control in the substantia nigra. Science. 2020 Jan 24;367(6476):440-445.

Oishi Y, Suzuki Y, Takahashi K, Yonezawa T, Kanda T, Takata Y, Cherasse Y, Lazarus M. Activation of ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons produces wakefulness through dopamine D2-like receptors in mice. Brain Struct Funct. 2017 Aug;222(6):2907-2915. 

Partanen J, Achim K. Neurons gating behavior-developmental, molecular and functional features of neurons in the Substantia Nigra pars reticulata. Front Neurosci. 2022 Sep 6;16:976209.

Qiu MH, Yao QL, Vetrivelan R, Chen MC, Lu J. Nigrostriatal Dopamine Acting on Globus Pallidus Regulates Sleep. Cereb Cortex. 2016 Apr;26(4):1430-9.

Qu WM, Xu XH, Yan MM, Wang YQ, Urade Y, Huang ZL. Essential role of dopamine D2 receptor in the maintenance of wakefulness, but not in homeostatic regulation of sleep, in mice. J Neurosci. 2010 Mar 24;30(12):4382-9.

Rice ME, Patel JC. Somatodendritic dopamine release: recent mechanistic insights. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Jul 5;370(1672):20140185. 

Rossi MA, Li HE, Lu D, Kim IH, Bartholomew RA, Gaidis E, Barter JW, Kim N, Cai MT, Soderling SH, Yin HH. A GABAergic nigrotectal pathway for coordination of drinking behavior. Nat Neurosci. 2016 May;19(5):742-748.

Salvatore MF. Dopamine Signaling in Substantia Nigra and Its Impact on Locomotor Function-Not a New Concept, but Neglected Reality. Int J Mol Sci. 2024 Jan 17;25(2):1131.

Shen KZ, Johnson SW. Regulation of polysynaptic subthalamonigral transmission by D2, D3 and D4 dopamine receptors in rat brain slices. J Physiol. 2012 May 15;590(10):2273-84.

Tepper JM, Wilson CJ, Koós T. Feedforward and feedback inhibition in neostriatal GABAergic spiny neurons. Brain Res Rev. 2008 Aug;58(2):272-81. 

Vetrivelan R, Qiu MH, Chang C, Lu J. Role of Basal Ganglia in sleep-wake regulation: neural circuitry and clinical significance. Front Neuroanat. 2010 Nov 23;4:145.

Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, Telang F, Fowler JS, Logan J, Benveniste H, Kim R, Thanos PK, Ferré S. Evidence that sleep deprivation downregulates dopamine D2R in ventral striatum in the human brain. J Neurosci. 2012 May 9;32(19):6711-7.

Yuan XS, Wang L, Dong H, Qu WM, Yang SR, Cherasse Y, Lazarus M, Schiffmann SN, d’Exaerde AK, Li RX, Huang ZL. Striatal adenosine A2Areceptor neurons control active-period sleep via parvalbumin neurons in external globus pallidus. Elife. 2017 Oct 12;6:e29055.

Zhang J, Peng Y, Liu C, Zhang Y, Liang X, Yuan C, Shi W, Zhang Y. Dopamine D1-receptor-expressing pathway from the nucleus accumbens to ventral pallidum-mediated sevoflurane anesthesia in mice. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2023 Nov;29(11):3364-3377. 

Essay 27: Feeding State Machine

Essay 27 returns to feeding, which essay 23 had an earlier sketch of. While the animal in earlier essays could eat while moving, like snails and worms, this essay will add the requirement of stopping before eating, which requires extra control mechanisms to manage the state transition.

A filter feeder like amphioxus, a non-vertebrate chordate that may hint at pre-vertebrate feeding, might move to find a better feeding zone, but then settles down as a static filter feeder. Tunicates, which are more closely related to vertebrates settle down permanently as adults and dissolve their brain as no longer needed. Because I want to keep the essay simple, I’m imaging something more like licking, which is more studied in rodents, as opposed to a more alien filter feeding. The main problem for the essay to introduce locomotion and eating as distinct actions.

As a contrast to further explore the idea of states and state transitions, the essays also explores the transition between roaming and dwelling: global wide-ranging search vs area restricted search. Roaming and dwelling are more amorphous motivational states as opposed to the strict motor division between moving and eating.

Feeding states

Below is a more detailed diagram of the foraging and feeding states, revolving around the core foraging task. The animal passively roams until is finds an odor cue for a food target, which starts a seek to the target. If it finds food, the animal sops and eats.

In this model, the roam state and dwell state can be separate from seeking a target, depending on the animal’s environmental niche. A seek can start in a roam state or a dwell state, and seek cues may or may not initiate dwell state. For example, dwell state might only start when the animal eats nutritious food, indicating that food is nearby.

Feeding state diagram for the essay. ach (acetylcholine neurotransmitter) agrp (hunger peptide), ARS (area restricted search), cgrp (alarm/bitter taste peptide), da (dopamine), glp-1 (satiety/sickness peptide), ox (orexin wakefulness/action peptide), set (somatostatin peptide), V.dr (dorsal raphe), 5HT (serotonin)

The diagram includes important failure states. If seeking fails, the animal gives up and leaves the area, and must ignore the last cue to avoid perseveration. If the taste is bitter or toxic, the animal rejects the food. For now, I’m postponing longer failure states like the food lacking nutritional value or causing food poisoning.

To avoid perseveration, seeking the failed cue forever, the avoid state moves the animal away from the failed cue and ignores seek cues. A more sophisticated brain could remember the failed cue for a short time, but the current essays lack short term memory.

Eating here means specifically licking or filter feeding. I’m being precise here because the simulation requires it, and more vague neuroscience terms like “reward” are often unclear about exactly what it’s relation to actual eating are.

The connection between the dwell state and serotonin is from [Flavell et al 2013], [Ji et al 2021] which founds serotonin marking the dwell state in the flatworm C. elegans, and [Marques et al 2020] finding serotonin for a zebrafish dwell (“exploit”) state.

Roaming and dwelling

Food search phases have multiple strategies, broadly divided into roaming and dwelling. Roaming is a broader, more general search without a specific area or target. Dwelling or ARS (area restricted search) is slower, with tighter turning, where the current area is believed to be more likely to have food. [Horstick et al 2017] describes dwell as four properties: reduction in travel distance, increased change in orientation, increased path complexity, and a directional bias.

For this essay, dwelling is a motivational drive not a motor command, meaning it can overlap with other motivations and doesn’t provide a strict action state requirement. For example, dwell isn’t required to seek a target, which can occur in the roaming state, for example in C. elegans [Ji et al 2021].

In the C. elegans the dwell state is associated with serotonin and the roam state with PDF (pigment dispensing factor) [Flavell et al 2013]. In zebrafish the dwell state is associated with V.dr (dorsal raphe) serotonin [Marques et al 2020], the roam state is associated with SST (somatostatin peptide) [Horstick et al 2017]. While arousal isn’t quite the same as well, [Lovett-Barron et al 2017] found SST as a low-arousal marker, while CART, ACh (acetylcholine), NE (norepinephrine), serotonin, dopamine and NPY (neuropeptide Y) as signs of high arousal.

Triggers for the dwell state depend on the animal’s species [Dorfman et al 2020]. In C. elegans, which feeds on bacteria, nutritional feedback extends the dwell state [Ben Arous et al 2009]. In some animals a food cue triggers dwell, while in others only eating nutritious food triggers dwell. In zebrafish lack of a food cue causes H.c (caudal hypothalamus) activation decay [Wee et al 2019].

Reflexive eating

This essay models reflexive eating as a hindbrain system controlled by B.pb (parabrachial nucleus) with downstream motor and sensory in B.nts (nuclei tractus solitarius), M.mdd (reticular medulla), and B.3g (trigeminal – orofacial sensorimotor). The simulation isn’t as detailed, treating the hindbrain eating as a single low-level module.

Hindbrain modules involved in reflexive eating. B.3g (trigeminal), B.mdd (reticular medulla), B.nts (nucleus tractus solitarius), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus).

This innate circuit can with without input from higher areas [Watts et al 2022]. For example if rodents lack any dopamine, they won’t move or eat and will starve even if food is near them. However, if food or water is placed at their lips, which activates the innate circuit, the rodents will eat [Rossi et al 2016].

The B.pb area also processes sweet, bitter or salt, and can reject food without requiring higher areas. The higher areas modulate B.pb behavior, such as suppressing B.pb’s innate rejection of sour when drinking lemonade.

Because the B.pb innate eating and the MLR (midbrain locomotor region) are independent, some system much coordinate switching between moving and eating.

The illusion of state machine atomicity

The feeding state diagram suggests a simple atomic transition from seeking food to eating the food, but this transition needs management from some neural circuits. For example, when braking during driving, drivers need to pay attention to the stopping distance. Braking stops a car, but the state transition isn’t a simple atomic transition. For this essay’s eating task, some neural circuit must keep track of the animal’s stopping after seeking and only allow eating when locomotion has stopped.

State transition from seeking to eating, emphasizing the stopping state. H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus).

H.stn (subthalamic nucleus) is involved with stopping, waiting, and switching tasks [Isoda and Hikosaka 2008]. Since H.stn also receives motor efference copies via T.pf (thalamus parafascicular nucleus) and Ppt (peduncular pontine nucleus), H.stn is in a good position to manage the stopping transition and can prevent eating until the locomotion has ended. The diagrams shows H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus) as a parallel area for gaiting eating, following [Barbier et al 2021].

H.stn and H.pstn state transition circuit

H.stn and H.pstn are well-placed to fulfill the transitions between seeking and eating. To flesh this idea out, here’s a simplified model of the seal to eat state transition circuit.

The main action paths are horizontal: moving is from H.stn to MLR to B.rs (reticulospinal motor neurons) and eating is from H.pstn to B.nts to orofacial licking motor neurons. The rest of the circuit manages the transition between the two states.

State transition circuit for move state to eat state. B.nts (nucleus tractus solidarus), fb (feedback), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), T.cl (centrolateral thalamus), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

Control over the transition comes from S.nr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), which inhibits eating when the animal is moving, and inhibits moving while the animal is eating. To know when the animal has stopped moving, H.stn receives motor efferent copies from T.cl and T.pf (centrolateral and parafascicular thalamus, aka intralaminar). As a note, T.cl contains cerebellum output, so H.stn may receive fine-grained motor timing feedback. H.pstn receives parallel eating efferent copies from B.pb and B.nts to know when the animal has stopped eating.

This circuit has the same structure as a lateral inhibition decision circuit, but the function is about handling timing and transition, not deciding between competing options.

Note: [Shah et al 2022] suggest H.pstn is more specific to suppressing feeding for aversive situations like food poisoning or a predator threat, but not the motor control as described here.

A note on this model: the actual neural circuit isn’t as clean, parallel and logical, because evolution isn’t an intelligent designer. Furthermore, this brain region is part of the neuropeptide core, where neuropeptide broadcast-like signaling can be more important than point-to-point circuit diagrams. Specifically, the disinhibition of B.pb eating is more likely peptides from the hypothalamus, not S.nr tonic inhibition.

H.l food zone

Studies on H.l (lateral hypothalamus) show two interesting results relevant here [Jennings et al 2015]:

  • Two distinct GABA neuron populations gate eating and seeking.
  • Two distinct neuron populations are active in a food zone or outside a food zone.

The food zone neurons partially explain how H.l decides between seeking and eating. How does this animal knows when it’s reached the food? In C. elegans there are dopamine chemosensory neurons that sense when the animal passes over food bacteria, and signals the animal to slow [Sawin et al 2000]. Dopamine chemosensory neurons also signal for the animal to turn more when leaving food (dwell-like state) [Hills et al 2004]. For this essay, using B.pb and B.nts to sense nearby food seems like a reasonable simplification because the simulation animal is aquatic and aquatic taste is a chemosensory system, similar to a close-range olfaction.

Food zone modulation of seeking and eating. fz (food zone), H.l (lateral hypothalamus).

The essay uses a signal when the animal is in a food zone or not in a food zone. The food zone signal inhibits eating or seeking actions when the animal is in a non-appropriate place. The essay uses a signal from B.pb as mentioned above.

In mammals H.l receives input from more sophisticated location systems than a bare chemosensory signal, such as E.sub.d (dorsal subiculum of hippocampus), S.ls (lateral septum, which processes hippocampal output), A.bl (basolateral amygdala, highly connected to hippocampus), S.msh (medial shell striatum receiving large hippocampus input) as well as the bare B.pb as for the simulation. All these areas incorporate more complicated environmental context. When the essays start investigating environmental context, I’ll need to revisit the H.l food zone with more sophisticated input.

H.sum as driving seek

Fleshing out the drivers of the seek circuit, consider H.sum (supramammillary nucleus, aka retromammillary) and its role in exploring (roaming and seeking). [Ferrell et al 2021] study a subset of H.sum neurons that express tac1 peptide (tachykinin, aka substance-P or neurokinin). These H.sum neurons correlate highly with movement velocity, a second before the action. Since they precede action, they’re upstream in the locomotive path.

H.sum is also involved in wakefulness [Liang et al 2023], [Plaisier et al 2020], motivation [Kesner et al 2021], and specifically food motivation [Le May et al 2019], and is modulated by hunger peptides like GLP-1 [Vogel et al 2016], [López-Ferreras et al 2018].

H.sum also participates in threat avoidance [Escobedo et al 2023], but that circuit is through Poa (preoptic area) and is outside this essay, although it would be interesting if any of the downstream circuitry is shared. H.sum is also well know for its role in hippocampal theta oscillations, novelty [Chen et al 2020], temporal and spatial memory [Cui et al 2013], and social memory, although those are outside the scope of this essay.

The diagram below shows a possible explore-related path of mammalian H.sum via the tac1 neurons.

Exploration locomotion driven through H.sum. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.sum (supramammillary nuleus), Hb.l (lateral habenula), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), M.pag (periaqueductal gray), P.ms (medial septum), V.dr (dorsal raphe – serotonin), Vta (ventral tegmental area – dopamine)

It may be important that H.sum and Vta (ventral tegmental area) are both neighbors and H.sum includes dopamine neurons and those dopamine neurons are sometimes considered an extension of the Vta [Yetnikoff et al 2014].

The following diagram gives an extremely rough idea of the adjacency of these areas. In a smaller primitive pre-vertebrate, these might not only be neighbors but mingled earlier functionality. The diagram includes H.zi (zona incerta) because it’s a neighbor, and also because H.zi is a food-seeking area [Ye et al 2023], but I’m postponing consideration of H.zi to a future essay.

Neighbors of the lateral habenula and supramammillary nucleus. H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), H.zi (zona incerta), MLR (midbrain locomotive region), Ppt (Pedunculopontine pontine nucleus), Snc (substantia nigra pars compacta – dopamine), Snr (substantia nigra pars reticulata), Vta (ventral tegmental nucleus – dopamine), ZLI (zona limitans intrathalamica).

In addition, the rostral part of Vta nearest H.sum is part of p3 in the prosomeric embryonic model, which is a source of hypothalamic cells [Kim et al 2022]. For pre-vertebrates in this essay, then, there might not be a distinct between H.sum and Vta / posterior tuberculum, particularly since the essays are currently focusing on downstream connections, not upstream dopamine to a future striatum. Zebrafish downstream dopamine circuits directly modulate locomotor movement [Ryczko et al 2020], [Reinig et al 2017]. I think it’s reasonable to simplify this circuit for now and consider H.sum as directly projecting to MLR.

State transition circuit for seek to eat

Putting these ideas together yields something like the diagram below. Like the earlier simplified diagram, horizontal paths drive core seeking and eating behavior, and other circuits manage the state transition. Seeking uses the top path from H.l to H.sum to MLR to B.rs, which produces the final locomotion. Eating uses the bottom path from H.l to H.pstn to B.nts, which controls reflexive eating.

State management circuit for seek to eat transition. B.nts (nucleus tracts solitarius), fb (feedback), fz (food zone), H.l (lateral hypothalamus), H.pstn (parasubthalamic nucleus), H.stn (subthalamic nucleus), H.sum (supramammillary nucleus), MLR (midbrain locomotor region), T.cl (centrolateral thalamus), T.pf (parafascicular thalamus).

The left contains motivational drivers. The food zone and non food zone systems restrict seeking and eating, only allowing seeking and eating in appropriate locations.

In the center H.stn and its parallel H.stn enforce a smooth transition between seeking and eating, using motor efferent copies to pause transition until active motor stops. The smooth transition creates the illusion of an atomic state transition.

As a diagram note, I’ve used red for the H.l inhibitory neurons that gate seek and eat because they’re playing the same role as Snr neurons. Technically they should be blue, if following normal essay conventions.

Modulation of eating

The eating and feeding modulation systems are complicated and overlapping, which is too detailed for this essay, but two part are interesting. First, B.pb tonically inhibits eating with the CGRP peptide to B.nts. To enable eating, H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate) disinhibits B.nts eating by sending AgRP (a hunger peptide) to B.pb [Campos et al 2016].

Modulation of reflexive eating. AgRP (a hunger peptide), B.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), CGRP (an anti-eating peptide), H.arc (hypothalamus arcuate).

Although the essays have used the disinhibition pattern before, the pattern has generally ben GABA disinhibition, while this feeding disinhibition uses peptide signaling. As mentioned above, there are many feeding-related peptides that inhibit, excite, and modulate the feeding system without using connection based synapses.

As a parallel, a drinking modulation path goes through the basal ganglia Snr and OT (optic tectum) [Rossi et al 2016]. This path though the basal ganglia and OT coordinates anticipatory licking, while the earlier B.nts path is reflexive eating.

Control of anticipatory licking. B.mdd (medulla licking motor), OT.dl (deep, lateral optic tectum), Snr.l (lateral substantia nigra pars reticulata)

Another drinking path involves S.a (central/striatal amygdala), midbrain, and hindbrain circuits [Zheng et al 2022]. M.dp (deep mesencephalic nucleus) extends licking but doesn’t initiate it. So M.dp might extend eating after tasting. Similarly B.plc extends eating [Gong et al 2020]. S.a sst (somatostatin peptide) neurons promote eating and drinking [Kim et al 2017].

Sustained eating with an amygdala circuit. B.mdd (medulla motor eating), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), M.dp (deep mesencephalic nucleus), S.a.sst (set-expressing neurons of the central amygdala).

Another path for tasting and eating runs through S.v (ventral striatum). [Sandoval-Rodríguez et al 2023] founds S.v directly controlling feeding using hindbrain taste input to extend eating, and using hindbrain GLP-1 (anti-eating peptide) to inhibit eating. Unlike most striatum circuits, these striatum neurons project directly to the hindbrain motor areas.

Ventral striatum taste exciting and food inhibition circuit with the hindbrain. B.ap (area postrema – nutrient sensing), B.mdd (medulla motor), B.nts (nucleus of the solitary tract), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), Sv (ventral striatum / nucleus accumbens).

Because this essay is already complicated enough, this simulation isn’t covering all of these details. For simplicity, the simulation will use a simple continuation circuit inspired by the central amygdala and postpone other control circuits for later exploration.

Simplified eating continuation circuit with the central amygdala. B.mdd (medulla motor), B.pb (parabrachial nucleus), Sa.sst (central amygdala, sst projecting neurons)

The important point for now is that eating modulation uses multiple paths, some controlled through synaptic circuits and others through broadcast motivational peptides. The system is not one or the other, but a messy combination. To model this messiness, the simulation needs to handle both systems.

References

Barbier M, Risold PY. Understanding the Significance of the Hypothalamic Nature of the Subthalamic Nucleus. eNeuro. 2021 Oct 4.

Ben Arous J, Laffont S, Chatenay D. Molecular and sensory basis of a food related two-state behavior in C. elegans. PLoS One. 2009 Oct 23;4(10):e7584. 

Campos CA, Bowen AJ, Schwartz MW, Palmiter RD. Parabrachial CGRP Neurons Control Meal Termination. Cell Metab. 2016 May 10;23(5):811-20.

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

Cui Z, Gerfen CR, Young WS 3rd. Hypothalamic and other connections with dorsal CA2 area of the mouse hippocampus. J Comp Neurol. 2013 Jun 1;521(8):1844-66. 

Dorfman A, Hills TT, Scharf I. A guide to area-restricted search: a foundational foraging behaviour. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2022 Dec;97(6):2076-2089. 

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. 

Flavell SW, Pokala N, Macosko EZ, Albrecht DR, Larsch J, and Bargmann CI (2013). Serotonin and the neuropeptide PDF initiate and extend opposing behavioral states in C. elegans. Cell 154, 1023–1035.

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. 

Hills T, Brockie PJ, Maricq AV (2004) Dopamine and glutamate control area-restricted search behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci 24: 1217–1225

Horstick EJ, Bayleyen Y, Sinclair JL, Burgess HA. Search strategy is regulated by somatostatin signaling and deep brain photoreceptors in zebrafish. BMC Biol. 2017 Jan 26;15(1):4. 

Isoda M, Hikosaka O. Role for subthalamic nucleus neurons in switching from automatic to controlled eye movement. J Neurosci. 2008 Jul 9;28(28):7209-18.

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 N, Madan GK, Fabre GI, Dayan A, Baker CM, Kramer TS, Nwabudike I, and Flavell SW (2021). A neural circuit for flexible control of persistent behavioral states. eLife 10. 10.7554/eLife.62889.

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 J, Zhang X, Muralidhar S, LeBlanc SA, Tonegawa S. Basolateral to Central Amygdala Neural Circuits for Appetitive Behaviors. Neuron. 2017 Mar 22;93(6):1464-1479.e5.

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.

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.

Liang M, Jian T, Tao J, Wang X, Wang R, Jin W, Chen Q, Yao J, Zhao Z, Yang X, Xiao J, Yang Z, Liao X, Chen X, Wang L, Qin H. Hypothalamic supramammillary neurons that project to the medial septum modulate wakefulness in mice. Commun Biol. 2023 Dec 12;6(1):1255. 

López-Ferreras L, Eerola K, Mishra D, Shevchouk OT, Richard JE, Nilsson FH, Hayes MR, Skibicka KP. GLP-1 modulates the supramammillary nucleus-lateral hypothalamic neurocircuit to control ingestive and motivated behavior in a sex divergent manner. Mol Metab. 2019 Feb;20:178-193. 

Lovett-Barron M, Andalman AS, Allen WE, Vesuna S, Kauvar I, Burns VM, Deisseroth K. Ancestral Circuits for the Coordinated Modulation of Brain State. Cell. 2017 Nov 30;171(6):1411-1423.e17.

Marques JC, Li M, Schaak D, Robson DN, Li JM. Internal state dynamics shape brainwide activity and foraging behaviour. Nature. 2020 Jan;577(7789):239-243.

Plaisier F, Hume C, Menzies J. Neural connectivity between the hypothalamic supramammillary nucleus and appetite- and motivation-related regions of the rat brain. J Neuroendocrinol. 2020 Feb;32(2):e12829.

 Reinig S, Driever W, Arrenberg AB. The Descending Diencephalic Dopamine System Is Tuned to Sensory Stimuli. Curr Biol. 2017 Feb 6;27(3):318-333. 

Rossi MA, Basiri ML, Liu Y, Hashikawa Y, Hashikawa K, Fenno LE, Kim YS, Ramakrishnan C, Deisseroth K, Stuber GD. Transcriptional and functional divergence in lateral hypothalamic glutamate neurons projecting to the lateral habenula and ventral tegmental area. Neuron. 2021 Dec 1;109(23):3823-3837.e6. 

Ryczko D, Grätsch S, Alpert MH, Cone JJ, Kasemir J, Ruthe A, Beauséjour PA, Auclair F, Roitman MF, Alford S, Dubuc R. Descending Dopaminergic Inputs to Reticulospinal Neurons Promote Locomotor Movements. J Neurosci. 2020 Oct 28;40(44):8478-8490.

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. 

Sawin ER, Ranganathan R, Horvitz HR (2000) C. elegans locomotory rate is modulated by the environment through a dopaminergic pathway and by experience through a serotonergic pathway. Neuron 26: 619–631 

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.

Vogel H, Wolf S, Rabasa C, Rodriguez-Pacheco F, Babaei CS, Stöber F, Goldschmidt J, DiMarchi RD, Finan B, Tschöp MH, Dickson SL, Schürmann A, Skibicka KP. GLP-1 and estrogen conjugate acts in the supramammillary nucleus to reduce food-reward and body weight. Neuropharmacology. 2016 Nov;110(Pt A):396-406.

Watts AG, Kanoski SE, Sanchez-Watts G, Langhans W. The physiological control of eating: signals, neurons, and networks. Physiol Rev. 2022 Apr 1;102(2):689-813. 

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. 

Ye Q, Nunez J, Zhang X. Zona incerta dopamine neurons encode motivational vigor in food seeking. Sci Adv. 2023 Nov 15;9(46):eadi5326.

Yetnikoff L, Lavezzi HN, Reichard RA, Zahm DS. An update on the connections of the ventral mesencephalic dopaminergic complex. Neuroscience. 2014 Dec 12;282:23-48.

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 22: Subthalamic Nucleus

After essay 21 changed the animal’s default movement to a Lévy exploration, it’s immediate to ask whether that random search is a full action, just like a seek turn or an avoid turn. An if exploration is a controlled action, then the model needs to treat exploration as a full action, like approach or avoid.

Exploration as a full locomotive system at the level of approach and avoid.

[Cisek 2020] identifies a vertebrate system for exploration, including the hippocampus (E.hc) and its associated nuclei such as the retromammilary hypothalamus (H.rm aka supramammilary). Essay 22 considers the idea of treating the subthalamic nucleus (H.stn) as part of the exploration circuit.

Subthalamic nucleus

H.stn is a hypothalamic nucleus from the same area as H.rm, which is part of the hippocampal theta circuit, which synchronizes exploration and spatial memory and learning. However, H.stn is part of the basal ganglia and not directly connected with the exploration system.

[Watson et al. 2021] finds a locomotive function of H.stn, where specific stimulation by the parafascicular thalamus (T.pf) to H.stn starts locomotion. If the stimulation is one-sided, the animal moves forward with a wide turn to the contralateral side. T.pf includes efference copies of motor actions from the MLR as well as from other midbrain actions.

Locomotion induced in the H.stn by T.pf stimulation. H.stn sub thalamic nucleus, T.pf parafascicular nucleus, MLR midbrain locomotor region.

For essay 22, let’s consider the H.stn locomotion as exploration. Since H.stn is part of the basal ganglia, the bulk of essay 22 is considering how exploration might fit into the proto-striatum model of essay 18.

Striatal attention and persistence

Since the current essay simulation animal is an early Cambrian proto-vertebrate, it doesn’t have a full basal ganglia. Evolutionarily, the full basal ganglia architecture could not have sprung into being fully formed; it must have developed in smaller step. Following a hypothetical evolutionary path, the essays are only implementing a simplified striatal model, adding features step-by-step. Unfortunately, because there’s no living species with a partial basal ganglia — all vertebrates have the full system — the essay’s steps are pure invention.

The initial striatum of essay 18 was a partial solution to a simulation problem: persistence. When the animal hit a wall head on, activating both touch sensors, it would choose randomly left or right, but because the simulation is real-time not turn-based, at the next tick both sensors remained active and the animal would choose randomly again, jittering at the wall until enough turns of the same direction escaped the barrier.

proto-striatum circuit for persistence by attention.
Proto-striatum for persistence by attention. Action feedback biases the choice to the last option: win-stay. B.rs reticulospinal motor command, Ob olfactory bulb, MLR midbrain locomotor region, Snc substantia nigra pars compacta (posterior tuberculum).

The main sense-to-action path is from the olfactory bulb (O.b) through the substantia nigra (Snc aka posterior tuberculum in zebrafish) to the midbrain locomotor region (MLR) and to the reticulospinal motor command neurons (B.rs), following the tracing and locomotive study of [Derjean et al. 2010] in zebrafish and Vta/Snc control of locomotion in [Ryczko et al. 2017]. The proto-striatum circuit is built around that olfactory-seeking circuit, acting persistent attention.

The proto-striatal model uses an efference copy of the last action from the MLR to bias the choice of the next action via a MLR to T.pf to striatum path. The model biases the choice through removing inhibition of the odor to action path. If the last action as left, the left odor is disinhibited, making it more likely to win.

The striatal system uses disinhibition for noise reasons. [Cohen et al. 2009] studied attention in the visual system and found that attention removed coherent noise by removing inhibition. By removing inhibition, the attended circuit is less affected by the controlling circuit’s noise.

Note: essay 19 considered an alternative solution to the attention issue by following the nucleus isthmi system in zebrafish as studied in [Grubert et al. 2006], where the attention to the win-stay odor used acetylcholine (ACh) amplification to bias the choice.

Striatal columns: approach and avoid

An immediate difficulty with the simple proto-striatal model is the lack of priority. Although left vs right have equal priority, avoiding a predator is more important than seeking a potential food source. Unfortunately, the proto-striatum treats all options equally. As a solution, essay 18 split the striatum into columns, where each column resolves an internal conflict without priority (“within-system”) and the columns are compared separately (“between-systems”), where “within-system” and “between-system” are from [Cisek 2019].

Proto-striatum columns for maintaining attention.
Dual striatum column for approach and avoid, where MLR resolves the final conflict. B.rs reticulospinal command neuron, B.ss somatosensory (touch), MLR midbrain locomotive region, M.pag periaqueductal gray, Ob olfactory bulb, S.ot olfactory tubercle, S.d dorsal striatum.

Subthalamic nucleus and exploration

If we now treat exploration as a distinct action system, then it needs its own control system and column in the proto-striatum. The within-system choice for exploration is the left and right turns for a random walk, and the between-system choices are between the exploration system and the odor-seeking system.

As a possible neural correlate of exploration, consider the sub thalamic nucleus (H.stn). The sub thalamic nucleus is derived from the hypothalamus, specifically from the same area as the retromammilary area (H.rm aka supramammilary), which is highly correlated with hippocamptal theta, locomotion and exploration.

[Watson et al. 2021] finds a locomotive function of H.stn, where specific stimulation by the parafascicular thalamus (T.pf) produces locomotion via the midbrain locomotive region (MLR). T.pf includes efference copies of motor actions from the MLR as well as other midbrain action efference copies. In the proto-striatum model, the feedback from MLR to striatum uses T.pf.

Exploration locomotive path through H.stn. H.stn sub thalamic nucleus, MLR midbrain locomotive region, T.pf parafascicular thalamus.

Seek and explore with dual striatal columns

Suppose the striatum manages both odor seeking (chemotaxis) and default exploration (Lévy walk). The two actions are conflicting with a complex priority system. When a food odor first appears, the animal should seek toward it (priority to seek), but if no food exists the animal should resume exploration (priority to explore). To resolve the between-system conflict, the two strategies need to columns with lateral inhibition to ensure that only one is selected.

Dual striatum columns for seek and explore strategies. B.rs reticulospinal motor command, H.stn sub thalamic nucleus, Ob olfactory bulb, P.ge globus pallidus external, S.d1 direct striatum projection, S.d2 indirect striatum projection, Snc substantia nigra pars compacta, Snr substantia nigra pars reticulata.

Selecting the seek column enables the odor sense to MLR path, seeking the potential food odor. Selecting the explore column enables the H.stn to MLR path, randomly searching for food.

Note: the double inversion in both paths is to reduce neuron noise [Cohen et al. 2009]. Removing inhibition reduces noise, where adding excitation would add noise. In the essay stimulation, this double negation isn’t necessary.

Striatum with dopamine/habenula control

The previous dual column circuit isn’t sufficient for the problem, because it lacks a control signal to switch between exploit (seek) and explore. The striatum dopamine circuit might help this problem by bringing in the foraging implementation from essay 17.

A major problem in essay 17 was the tradeoff between persistence and perseverance in seeking an odor. Persistence ensures that seeking an odor will continue even when the intermittent. Perseverance is a failure mode where the animal never gives up, like a moth to a flame. As a model, consider using dopamine in the striatum as persistence or effort [Salamone et al. 2007], and control of dopamine by the habenula as solving perseverance with a give-up circuit.

Explore and exploit (seek) columns controlled by dopamine. H.l lateral hypothalamus, Hb.l lateral habenula, H.stn sub thalamic nucleus, MLR midbrain locomotive region, Ob olfactory bulb, P.em pre thalamic eminence, P.ge globus pallidus external, S.d1 striatum direct projection, S.d2 striatum indirect projection, Snc substantia nigra pars compacta, Snr substantia nigra pars reticulata.

The striatum uses two opposing dopamine receptors named D1 and D2. D1 is a stimulating modulator though a G.s protein path, and D2 is an inhibiting modulator through a G.i protein path. In the above diagram, high dopamine will activate the seek column via D1 and inhibiting the explore column via D2. Low dopamine inhibits the seek column and enables the explore column. So dopamine becomes an exploit vs explore controller.

In many primitive animals, dopamine is a food signal. In c.elegans the dopamine neuron is a food-detecting sensory neuron. In vertebrates, the hunger and food-seeking areas like the lateral hypothalamus (H.l) strongly influence midbrain dopamine neurons both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, H.l to lateral habenula (Hb.l) causes non-reward aversion [Lazaridis et al. 2019].

For the essay, I’m taking H.l as multiple roles (H.l is a composite area with at least nine sub-areas [Diaz et al. 2023]), both calculating potential reward (odor) via the H.l to Vta/Snc connection, and cost (exhaustion of seek task without success) via the H.l to Hb.l to Vta/Snc connection.

References

Cisek P. Resynthesizing behavior through phylogenetic refinement. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Oct

Cisek P. Evolution of behavioural control from chordates to primates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2022 Feb 14

Cohen MR, Maunsell JH. Attention improves performance primarily by reducing interneuronal correlations. Nat Neurosci. 2009 Dec;12(12):1594-600.

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

Diaz, C., de la Torre, M.M., Rubenstein, J.L.R. et al. Dorsoventral Arrangement of Lateral Hypothalamus Populations in the Mouse Hypothalamus: a Prosomeric Genoarchitectonic Analysis. Mol Neurobiol 60, 687–731 (2023).

Gruberg E., Dudkin E., Wang Y., Marín G., Salas C., Sentis E., Letelier J., Mpodozis J., Malpeli J., Cui H. Influencing and interpreting visual input: the role of a visual feedback system. J. Neurosci. 2006;26:10368–10371

Lazaridis I, Tzortzi O, Weglage M, Märtin A, Xuan Y, Parent M, Johansson Y, Fuzik J, Fürth D, Fenno LE, Ramakrishnan C, Silberberg G, Deisseroth K, Carlén M, Meletis K. A hypothalamus-habenula circuit controls aversion. Mol Psychiatry. 2019 Sep

Ryczko D, Grätsch S, Schläger L, Keuyalian A, Boukhatem Z, Garcia C, Auclair F, Büschges A, Dubuc R. Nigral Glutamatergic Neurons Control the Speed of Locomotion. J Neurosci. 2017 Oct 4

Salamone JD, Correa M, Nunes EJ, Randall PA, Pardo M. The behavioral pharmacology of effort-related choice behavior: dopamine, adenosine and beyond. J Exp Anal Behav. 2012 Jan

Watson GDR, Hughes RN, Petter EA, Fallon IP, Kim N, Severino FPU, Yin HH. Thalamic projections to the subthalamic nucleus contribute to movement initiation and rescue of parkinsonian symptoms. Sci Adv. 2021 Feb 5

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén