A stable, distributed code for cue value in mouse cortex during reward learning

Consensus Public Review:

Ottenheimer et al., present an interesting study looking at the neural representation of value in mice performing a pavlovian association task. The task is repeated in the same animals using two odor sets, allowing a distinction between odor identity coding and value coding. The authors use state-of-the-art electrophysiological techniques to record thousands of neurons from 11 frontal cortical regions to conclude that 1) licking is represented more strongly in dorsal frontal regions, 2) odor cues are represented more strongly in ventral frontal regions, 3) cue values are evenly distributed across regions. They separately perform a calcium imaging study to track coding across days and conclude that the representation of task features increments with learning and remains stable thereafter.

Overall, these conclusions are interesting and mostly well supported by the data, although there are some doubts about their definition of value coding. One limitation is the lack of focus on population-level dynamics from the perspective of decoding, with the analysis focusing primarily on encoding analyses within individual neurons.

Some specific comments:

The authors use reduced-rank kernel regression to characterize the 5332 recorded neurons on a cell-by-cell basis in terms of their responses to cues, licks, and reward, with a cell characterized as encoding one of these parameters if it accounts for at least 2% of the observed variance. At least 50% of cells met this inclusion criterion in each recorded area. 2% feels like a lenient cutoff, and it is unclear how sensitive the results are to this cutoff, though the authors argue that this cutoff should still only allow a false positive rate of 0.02% (determined by randomly shuffling the onset time of each trial).

Having identified lick, reward, and cue cells, the authors next select the 24% of "cue-only" neurons and look for cells that specifically encode cue value. Because the animal's perception of stimulus value can't be measured directly, the authors created a linear model that predicts the amount of anticipatory licking in the interval between odor cue and reward presentations. The session-average-predicted lick rate by this model is used as an estimate of cue value and is used in the regression analysis that identified value cells. (Hence, the authors' definition of value is dependent on the average amount of anticipatory behavior ahead of a reward, which indicates that compared to the CS+, mice licked around 70% as much to the CS50 and 10% as much to the CS-.) The claim that this is an encoding of value is strengthened by the fact that cells show similar scaling of responses to two odor sets tested. Whereas the authors found more "lick" cells in motor regions and more "cue" cells in sensory regions, they find a consistent percentage of "value" cells (that is, cells found to be cue-only in the initial round of analysis that is subsequently found to encode anticipatory lick rate) across all 11 recorded regions, leading to their claim of a distributed code of value.

In subsequent sections, the authors expand their model of anticipatory-licking-as-value by incorporating trial and stimulus history terms into the model, allowing them to predict the anticipatory lick rate on individual trials within a session. They also use 2-photon imaging in PFC to demonstrate that neural coding of cue and lick are stable across three days of imaging, supported by two lines of evidence. First, they show that the correlation between cell responses on all periods except for the start of day 1 is more correlated with day 3 responses than expected by chance (although the correlation is still quite low, for example, 0.2 on day 2). Second, they show that cue identity is able to capture the highest unique fraction of variance (around 8%) in day 3 cue cells across three days of imaging, and similarly for lick behavior in lick cells and cue+lick in cue+lick cells. Nonetheless, their sample rasters for all imaged cells also indicate that representations are not perfectly stable, and it will be interesting to see what *does* change across the three days of imaging.

Importantly, the authors do not present evidence that value itself is stably encoded across days, despite the paper's title. The more conservative in its claims in the Discussion seems more appropriate: "these results demonstrate a lack of regional specialization in value coding and the stability of cue and lick [(not value)] codes in PFC."

Author Response:

We thank the eLife editorial board and the reviewers for the assessment of our article. We look forward to thoroughly addressing their comments and concerns. We would like to correct one factual error in the consensus public review:

“Importantly, the authors do not present evidence that value itself is stably encoded across days, despite the paper's title. The more conservative in its claims in the Discussion seems more appropriate: "these results demonstrate a lack of regional specialization in value coding and the stability of cue and lick [(not value)] codes in PFC."

The imaging sessions in which we identify value coding cells were in fact performed on separate days: Experimental Days 6 and 7 (see Figure 1b), which is evidence of the stability of value coding across consecutive days. Days 6 and 7 correspond to the third day of Odor Set 1 and the third day of Odor Set 2, respectively, which is why we referred to them both as “Day 3” in the manuscript, and this may have led to the confusion about the temporal relationship between these sessions. We will clarify this terminology in the revised manuscript.