Mouse sensorimotor cortex reflects complex kinematic details during reaching and grasping

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study addresses the encoding of forelimb movement parameters using a reach-to-grasp task in mice. The authors use a modified version of the water-reaching paradigm developed by Galinanes and Huber. Two-photon calcium imaging was then performed with GCaMP6f to measure activity across both the contralateral caudal forelimb area (CFA) and the forelimb portion of primary somatosensory cortex (fS1) as mice perform the reaching behavior. Established methods were used to extract the activity of imaged neurons in layer 2/3, including methods for deconvolving the calcium indicator's response function from fluorescence time series. Video-based limb tracking was performed to track the positions of several sites on the forelimb during reaching and extract numerous low-level (joint angle) and high-level (reach direction) parameters. The authors find substantial encoding of parameters for both the proximal and distal parts of the limb across both CFA and fS1, with individual neurons showing heterogeneous parameter encoding. Limb movement can be decoded similarly well from both CFA and fS1, though CFA activity enables decoding of reach direction earlier and for a more extended duration than fS1 activity. Collectively, these results indicate involvement of a broadly distributed sensorimotor region in mouse cortex in determining low-level features of limb movement during reach-to-grasp.

Strengths:

The technical approach is of very high quality. In particular, the decoding methods are well designed and rigorous. The use of partial correlations to distinguish correlation between cortical activity and either proximal or distal limb parameters or either low- or high-level movement parameters was very nice. The limb tracking was also of extremely high quality, and critical here to revealing the richness of distal limb movement during task performance.

The task itself also reflects an important extension of the original work by Galinanes and Huber. The demonstration of a clear, trackable grasp component in a paradigm where mice will perform hundreds of trials per day expands the experimental opportunities for the field. This is an exciting development.

The findings here are important and the support for them is solid. The work represents an important step forward toward understanding the cortical origins of limb control signals. One can imagine numerous extensions of this work to address basic questions that have not been reachable in other model systems.

Collectively, these strengths made this manuscript a pleasure to read and review.

Weaknesses:

In the last section of the results, the authors purport to examine the representation of "higher-level target-related signals," using the decoding of reach direction. While I think the authors are careful in their phrasing here, I think they should be more explicit about what these signals could be reflecting. The "signals" here that are used to decode direction could relate to anything - low-level signals related to limb or postural muscles, or true high-level commands that dictate only what movement downstream motor centers should execute, rather than the muscle commands that dictate how. One could imagine using a partial correlation-type approach again here to extract a signal uncorrelated with all the measured low-level parameters, but there would still be all the unmeasured ones. Again, I think it is still ok to call these "high-level signals," but I think some explicit discussion of what these signals could reflect is necessary.

Related to this, I think the manuscript in general does not do an adequate job of explicitly raising the important caveats in interpreting parametric correlations in motor system signals, like those raised by Todorov, 2000. The authors do an expert job of handling the correlations, using PCA to extract uncorrelated components and using the partial correlation approach. However, more clarity about the range of possible signal types the recorded activity could reflect seems necessary.

The manuscript could also do a better job of clarifying relevant similarities and differences between the rodent and primate systems, especially given the claims about the rodent being a "first-class" system for examining the cellular and circuit basis of motor control, which I certainly agree with. Interspecies similarities and differences could be better addressed both in the Introduction, where results from both rodents and primates are intermixed (second paragraph), and in the Discussion, where more clarity on how results here agree and disagree with those from primates would be helpful. For example, the ratio of corticospinal projections targeting sensory and motor divisions of the spinal cord differs substantially between rodents and primates. As another example, the relatively high physical proximity between the typical neurons in mouse M1 and S1 compared to primates seems likely to yoke their activity together to a greater extent. There is also the relatively large extent of fS1 from which forelimb movements can be elicited through intracortical microstimulation at current levels similar to those for evoking movement from M1. All of these seem relevant in the context of findings that activity in mouse M1 and S1 are similar.

In addition, there are a number of other issues related to the interpretation of findings here that are not adequately addressed. These are described in the Recommendations for improvement.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Grier, Salimian, and Kaufman characterize the relationship between the activity of neurons in sensorimotor cortex and forelimb kinematics in mice performing a reach-to-grasp task. First, they train animals to reach to two cued targets to retrieve water reward, measure limb motion with high resolution, and characterize the stereotyped kinematics of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and digits. Next, they find that inactivation of the caudal forelimb motor area severely impairs coordination of the limb and prevents successful performance of the task. They then use calcium imaging to measure the activity of neurons in motor and somatosensory cortex, and demonstrate that fine details of limb kinematics can be decoded with high fidelity from this activity. Finally, they show reach direction (left vs right target) can be decoded earlier in the trial from motor than from somatosensory cortex.

Strengths:

In my opinion, this manuscript is technically outstanding and really sets a new bar for motor systems neurophysiology in the mouse. The writing and figures are clear, and the claims are supported by the data. This study is timely, as there has been a recent trend towards recording large numbers of neurons across the brain in relatively uncontrolled tasks and inferring a widespread but coarse encoding of high-level task variables. The central finding here, that sensorimotor cortical activity reflects fine details of forelimb movement, argues against the resurgent idea of cortical equipotentiality, and in favor of a high degree of specificity in the responses of individual neurons and of the specialization of cortical areas.

Weaknesses:

It would be helpful for the authors to be more explicit about which models of mouse cortical function their results support or rule out, and how their findings break new conceptual ground.