Stochastic characterization of navigation strategies in an automated variant of the Barnes maze

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors design an automated 24-well Barnes maze with 2 orienting cues inside the maze, then model what strategies the mice use to reach the goal location across multiple days of learning. They consider a set of models and conclude that one of these models, a combined strategy model, best explains the experimental data.

This study is written concisely and the results presented concisely. The best fit model is reasonably simple and fits the experimental data well (at least the summary measures of the data that were presented).

Major points:

1. One combined strategy (once the goal location is learned) that might seem to be reasonable would be that the animal knows roughly where the goal is, but not exactly where, so it first uses a spatial strategy just to get to the first vestibule, then switches to a serial strategy until it reaches the correct vestibule. How well would such a strategy explain the data for the later sessions? The best combined model presented in the manuscript is one in which the animal starts with a roughly 50-50 chance of a serial (or spatial strategy) from the start vestibule (i.e. by the last session before the reversal the serial and spatial strategies are at ~50-50m in Fig. 5d). Is it the case that even after 15 days of training the animal starts with a serial strategy from its starting point approximately half of the time? The broader point is whether additional examination of the choices made by the animal, combined with consideration of a larger range of possible models, would be able to provide additional insight into the learning and strategies the animal uses.

2. To clarify, in the Fig. 4 simulations, is the "last" vestibule visit of each trial, which is by definition 0, not counted in the plots of Fig. 4b? Otherwise, I would expect that vestibule 0 is overrepresented because a trial always ends with Vi = 0.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper uses a novel maze design to explore mouse navigation behaviour in an automated analogue of the Barnes maze. Overall I find the work to be solid, with the cleverly designed maze/protocol to be its major strength - however there are some issues that I believe should be addressed and clarified.

1. Whilst I'm generally a fan of the experimental protocol, the design means that internal odor cues on the maze change from trial to trial, along with cues external to the maze such as the sounds and visual features of the recording room, ultimately making it hard for the mice to use a completely allocentric spatial 'place' strategy to navigate. I do not think there is a way to control for these conflicts between reference frames in the statistical modelling, but I do think these issues should be addressed in the discussion.

2. Somewhat related - I could not find how the internal maze cues are moved for each trial to demarcate the new goal (i.e. the luminous cues) ? This should be clarified in the methods.

3. It appears some data is being withheld from Figures 2&3? E.g. Days 3/4 from Fig 2b-f and Days 1-5 on for Fig 3. Similarly, Trials 2-7 are excluded from Fig 3. If this is the case, why? It should be clarified in the main text and Figure captions, preferably with equivalent plots presenting all the data in the supplement.

4. I strongly believe the data and code should be made freely available rather than "upon reasonable request".

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Royer et al. present a fully automated variant of the Barnes maze to reduce experimenter interference and ensure consistency across trials and subjects. They train mice in this maze over several days and analyze the progression of mouse search strategies during the course of the training. By fitting models involving stochastic processes, they demonstrate that a model combined of the random, spatial, and serial processes can best account for the observed changes in mice's search patterns. Their findings suggest that across training days the spatial strategy (using local landmarks) was progressively employed, mostly at the expense of the random strategy, while the serial strategy (consecutive nearby vestibule check) is reinforced from the early stages of training. Finally, they discuss potential mechanistic underpinnings within brain systems that could explain such behavioral adaptation and flexibility.

Strength:
The development of an automated Barnes maze allows for more naturalistic and uninterrupted behavior, facilitating the study of spatial learning and memory, as well as the analysis of the brain's neural networks during behavior when combined with neurophysiological techniques. The system's design has been thoughtfully considered, encompassing numerous intricate details. These details include the incorporation of flexible options for selecting start, goal, and proximal landmark positions, the inclusion of a rotating platform to prevent the accumulation of olfactory cues, and careful attention given to atomization, taking into account specific considerations such as the rotation of the maze without causing wire shortage or breakage. When combined with neurophysiological manipulations or recordings, the system provides a powerful tool for studying spatial navigation system.
The behavioral experiment protocols, along with the analysis of animal behavior, are conducted with care, and the development of behavioral modeling to capture the animal's search strategy is thoughtfully executed. It is intriguing to observe how the integration of these innovative stochastic models can elucidate the evolution of mice's search strategy within a variant of the Barnes maze.

Weakness:
1. The development of the well-thought-out automated Barnes maze may attract the interest of researchers exploring spatial learning and memory. However, this aspect of the paper lacks significance due to insufficient coverage of the materials and methods required for readers to replicate the behavioral methodology for their own research inquiries.
Moreover, as discussed by the authors, the methodology favors specialists who utilize wired recordings or manipulations (e.g. optogenetics) in awake, behaving rodents. However, it remains unclear how the current maze design, which involves trapping mice in start and goal positions and incorporating angled vestibules resulting in the addition of numerous corners, can be effectively adapted for animals with wired implants.

2. Novelty: In its current format, the main axis of the paper falls on the analysis of animal behavior and the development of behavioral modeling. In this respect, while it is interesting to see how thoughtfully designed models can explain the evolution of mice search strategy in a maze, the conclusions offer limited novel findings that align with the existing body of research and prior predictions.

3. Scalability and accessibility: While the approach may be intriguing to experts who have an interest in or are familiar with the Barnes maze, its presentation seems to primarily target this specific audience. Therefore, there is a lack of clarity and discussion regarding the scalability of behavioral modeling to experiments involving other search strategies (such as sequence or episodic learning), other animal models, or the potential for translational applications. The scalability of the method would greatly benefit a broader scientific community. In line with this view, the paper's conclusions heavily rely on the development of new models using custom-made codes. Therefore, it would be advantageous to make these codes readily available, and if possible, provide access to the processed data as well. This could enhance comprehension and enable a larger audience to benefit from the methodology.

4. Cross-validation of models: The authors have not implemented any measures to mitigate the risk of overfitting in their modeling. It would have been beneficial to include at least some form of cross-validation with stochastic models to address this concern. Additionally, the paper lacks the presence of analytics or measures that assess and compare the performance of the models.

5. Quantification of inter-animal variations in strategy development: It is important to investigate, and address the argument concerning the possibility that not all animals recruit and develop the three processes (random, spatial, and serial) in a similar manner over days of training. It would be valuable to quantify the transition in strategy across days for each individual mouse and analyze how the population average, reflecting data from individual mice, corresponds to these findings. Currently, there is a lack of such quantification and analysis in the paper.