Complementary cognitive roles for D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs in interval timing

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors examine the activity and function of D1 and D2 MSNs in dorsomedial striatum (DMS) during an interval timing task. In this task, animals must first nose poke into a cued port on the left or right; if not rewarded after 6 seconds, they must switch to the other port. Critically, this task thus requires animals to estimate if at least 6 seconds have passed after the first nose poke - this is the key aspect of the task focused on here. After verifying that animals reliably estimate the passage of 6 seconds by leaving on average after 9 seconds, the authors examine striatal activity during this interval. They report that D1-MSNs tend to decrease activity, while D2-MSNs increase activity, throughout this interval. They suggest that this activity follows a drift-diffusion model, in which activity increases (or decreases) to a threshold after which a decision (to leave) is made. The authors next report that optogenetically inhibiting D1 or D2 MSNs, or pharmacologically blocking D1 and D2 receptors, increased the average wait time of the animals to 10 seconds on average. This suggests that both D1 and D2 neurons contribute to the estimate of time, with a decrease in their activity corresponding to a decrease in the rate of 'drift' in their drift-diffusion model. Lastly, the authors examine MSN activity while pharmacologically inhibiting D1 or D2 receptors. The authors observe most recorded MSNs neurons decrease their activity over the interval, with the rate decreasing with D1/D2 receptor inhibition.

Major strengths:

The study employs a wide range of techniques - including animal behavioral training, electrophysiology, optogenetic manipulation, pharmacological manipulations, and computational modeling. The behavioral task used by the authors is quite interesting and a nice way to probe interval timing in rodents. The question posed by the authors - how striatal activity contributes to interval timing - is of importance to the field and has been the focus of many studies and labs; thus, this paper can meaningfully contribute to that conversation. The data within the paper is presented very clearly, and the authors have done a nice job presenting the data in a transparent manner (e.g., showing individual cells and animals). Overall, the manuscript is relatively easy to read and clear, with sufficient detail given in most places regarding the experimental paradigm or analyses used.

Major weaknesses:

I perceive two major weaknesses. The first is the impact or contextualization of their results in terms of the results of the field more broadly. More specifically, it was not clear to me how the authors are interpreting the striatal activity in the context of what others have observed during interval timing tasks. In other words - what was the hypothesis going into this experiment? Does observing increasing/decreasing activity in D2 versus D1 support one model of interval timing over another, or does it further support a more specific idea of how DMS contributes to interval timing? Or was the main question that we didn't know if D2 or D1 neurons had differential activity during interval timing?

In the second, I felt that some of the conclusions suggested by the authors don't seem entirely supported by the data they present, or the data presented suggests a slightly more complicated story. Below I provide additional detail on some of these instances.

Regarding the results presented in Figures 2 and 3:

I am not sure the PC analysis adds much to the interpretation, and potentially unnecessarily complicates things. In particular, running PCA on a matrix of noisy data that is smoothed with a Gaussian will often return PCs similar to what is observed by the authors, with the first PC being a line up/down, the 2nd PC being a parabola that is up/down, etc. Thus, I'm not sure that there is much to be interpreted by the specific shape of the PCs here. I think an alternative analysis that might be both easier and more informative is to compute the slope of the activity of each neuron across the 6 seconds. This would allow the authors to quantify how many neurons increase or decrease their activity much like what is shown in Figure 2.

Relatedly, it seems that the data shown in Figure 2D *doesn't* support the authors' main claim regarding D2/D1 MSNs increasing/decreasing their activity, as the trial-by-trial slope is near 0 for both cell types.

Regarding the results in Figure 4:

The authors suggest that their data is consistent with a drift-diffusion model. However, it is unclear how well the output from the model fits the activity from neurons the authors recorded. Relatedly, it is unclear how the parameters were chosen for the D1/D2 versions of this model. I think that an alternate approach that would answer these questions is to fit the model to each cell, and then examine the best-fit parameters, as well as the ability of the model to predict activity on trials held out from the fitting process. This would provide a more rigorous method to identify the best parameters and would directly quantify how well the model captures the data.

Relatedly, looking at the raw data in Figure 2, it seems that many neurons either fire at the beginning or end of the interval, with more neurons firing at the end, and more firing at the beginning, for D2/D1 neurons respectively. Thus, it's not clear to me whether the drift-diffusion model is a good model of activity. Or, perhaps the model is supposed to be related to the aggregate activity of all D1/D2 neurons? (If so, this should be made more explicit. The comment about fitting the model directly to the data also still stands).

Further, it's unclear to me how, or why, the authors changed the specific parameters they used to model the optogenetic manipulation. Were these parameters chosen because they fit the manipulation data? This I don't think is in itself an issue, but perhaps should be clearly stated, because otherwise it sounds a bit odd given the parameter changes are so specific. It is also not clear to me why the noise in the diffusion process would be expected to change with increased inhibition.

Regarding the results in Figure 6:

My comments regarding the interpretation of PCs in Figure 2 apply here as well. In addition, I am not sure that examining PC2 adds much here, given that the authors didn't examine such nonlinear changes earlier in the paper.

A larger concern though that seems potentially at odds with the authors' interpretation is that there seems to be very little change in the firing pattern after D1 or D2 blockade. I see that in Figure 6F the authors suggest that many cells slope down (and thus, presumably, they are recoding more D1 cells), and that this change in slope is decreased, but this effect is not apparent in Figure 6C, and Figure 6B shows an example of a cell that seems to fire in the opposite direction (increase activity). I think it would help to show some (more) individual examples that demonstrate the summary effect shown by the authors, and perhaps the authors can comment on the robustness (or the variability) of this result.

Also, it seems that if the authors want to claim that this manipulation lowers the drift rate. I think to make this claim, they could fit the DDM model and examine whether D is significantly lower.

Regarding the results in Figure 7:

I am overall a bit confused about what the authors are trying to claim here. In Figure 7, they present data suggesting that D1 or D2 blockade disrupts their ability to decode time in the interval of interest (0-6 seconds). However, in the final paragraph of the results, the authors seem to say that by using another technique, they didn't see any significant change in decoding accuracy after D1 or D2 blockade. What do the authors make of this?

Impact:

The task and data presented by the authors are very intriguing, and there are many groups interested in how striatal activity contributes to the neural perception of time. The authors perform a wide variety of experiments and analysis to examine how DMS activity influences time perception during an interval-timing task, allowing for insight into this process. However, the significance of the key finding - that D2/D1 activity increases/ decreases with time - remains somewhat ambiguous to me. This arises from a lack of clarity regarding the initial hypothesis and the implications of this finding for advancing our understanding of striatal functions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors investigated the neural coding mechanisms for D1- and D2-expressing striatal direct and indirect pathway MSNs in interval timing by using multiple strategies. They concluded that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs have opposing temporal dynamics yet disrupting either type produced similar effects on behavior, indicating the complementary roles of D1- and D2- MSNs in cognitive processing. However, the data was incomplete to fully support this major finding. One major reason is the heterogenetic responses within the D1-or D2-MSN populations. In addition, there are additional concerns about the statistical methods used. For example, the majority of the statistical tests are based on the number of neurons, but not the number of mice. It appears that the statistical difference was due to the large sample size they used (n=32 D2-MSNs and n=41 D1-MSNs), but different neurons recorded in the same mouse cannot be treated as independent samples; they should use independent mouse-based statistical analysis.

Strengths:

The authors used multiple approaches including awake mice behavior training, optogenetic-assistant cell-type specific recording, optogenetic or pharmacological manipulation, neural computation, and modeling to study neuronal coding for interval timing.

Weaknesses:

(1) More detailed behavior results should be shown, including the rate of the success switches, and how long it takes to wait in the second nose poke to get a reward. For line 512 and the Figure 1 legend, the reviewer is not clear about the reward delivery. The methods appear to state that the mouse had to wait for 18s, then make nose pokes at the second port to get the reward. What happens if the mouse made the second nose poke before 18 seconds, but then exited? Would the mouse still get the reward at 18 seconds? Similarly, what happens if the mice made the third or more nosepokes within 18 seconds? It is important to clarify because, according to the method described, if the mice made a second nose poke before 18 seconds, this already counted as the mouse making the "switch." Lastly, what if the mice exited before 6s in the first nosepoke?

(2) There are a lot of time parameters in this behavior task, the description of those time parameters is mentioned in several parts, in the figure legend, supplementary figure legend, and methods, but was not defined clearly in the main text. It is inconvenient, sometimes, confusing for the readers. The authors should make a schematic diagram to illustrate the major parameters and describe them clearly in the main text.

(3) In Line 508, the reviewer suggests the authors pay attention to those trials without "switch". It would be valuable to compare the MSN activity between those trials with or without a "switch".

(4) The definition of interval is not very clear. It appears that the authors used a 6-second interval in analyzing the data in Figure 2 and Figure 3. But from my understanding, the interval should be the time from time "0" to the "switch", when the mice start to exit from the first nose poke.

(5) For Figure 2 C-F, the authors only recorded 32 D2-MSNs in 4 mice, and 41 D1-MSNs in 5 mice. The sample size is too small compared to the sample size usually used in the field. In addition to the small sample size, the single-cell activity exhibited heterogeneity, which created potential issues. For both D1 and D2 MSNs, the authors tried to make conclusions on the "trend" of increasing in D2-MSNs and decreasing in D1-MSNs populations, respectively, during the interval. However, such a conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the data presented. It looks like the single-cell activity patterns can be separated into groups: one is a decreasing activity group, one is an increasing activity group and a small group for on and off response. Because of the small sample size, the author should pay attention to the variance across different mice (which needs to be clearly presented in the manuscript), instead of pooling data together and analyzing the mean activity.

(6) For Figure 2, from the activity in E and F, it seems that the activity already rose before the trial started, the authors should add some longer baseline data before time zero for clarification and comparison, and show the timing of the actual start of the activity with the corresponding behavior. What behavior states are the mice in when initiating the activity?

(7) The authors were focused on the "switch " behavior in the task, but they used an arbitrary 6s time window to analyze the activity, and tried to correlate the decreasing or increasing activities of MSNs to the neural coding for time. A better way to analyze is to sort the activity according to the "switch" time, from short to long intervals. This way, the authors could see and analyze whether the activity of D1 or D2 MSNs really codes for the different length of interval, instead of finding a correlation between average activity trends and the arbitrary 6s time window.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The cognitive striatum, also known as the dorsomedial striatum, receives input from brain regions involved in high-level cognition and plays a crucial role in processing cognitive information. However, despite its importance, the extent to which different projection pathways of the striatum contribute to this information processing remains unclear. In this paper, Bruce et al. conducted a study using a range of causal and correlational techniques to investigate how these pathways collectively contribute to interval timing in mice. Their results were consistent with previous research, showing that the direct and indirect striatal pathways perform opposing roles in processing elapsed time. Based on their findings, the authors proposed a revised computational model in which two separate accumulators track evidence for elapsed time in opposing directions. These results have significant implications for understanding the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment in neurological and psychiatric disorders, as disruptions in the balance between direct and indirect pathway activity are commonly observed in such conditions.

Strengths:

The authors employed a well-established approach to study interval timing and employed optogenetic tagging to observe the behavior of specific cell types in the striatum. Additionally, the authors utilized two complementary techniques to assess the impact of manipulating the activity of these pathways on behavior. Finally, the authors utilized their experimental findings to enhance the theoretical comprehension of interval timing using a computational model.

Weaknesses:

The behavioral task used in this study is best suited for investigating elapsed time perception, rather than interval timing. Timing bisection tasks are often employed to study interval timing in humans and animals. The main results from unit recording (opposing slopes of D1/D2 cell firing rate, as shown in Figure 3D) appear to be very sensitive to a couple of outlier cells, and the predictive power of ensemble recording seems to be only slightly above chance levels. In the optogenetic experiment, the laser was kept on for too long (18 seconds) at high power (12 mW). This has been shown to cause adverse effects on population activity (for example, through heating the tissue) that are not necessarily related to their function during the task epochs. Given the systemic delivery of pharmacological interventions, it is difficult to conclude that the effects are specific to the dorsomedial striatum. Future studies should use the local infusion of drugs into the dorsomedial striatum.

Author Response

eLife assessment

This valuable study examines the activity and function of dorsomedial striatal neurons in estimating time. The authors examine striatal activity as a function of time and the impact of optogenetic striatal manipulation on the animal's ability to estimate a time interval. However, the task's design and methodology present several confounding factors that mean the evidence in support of the authors' claims is incomplete. With these limitations addressed, the work would be of interest to neuroscientists examining how striatum contributes to behavior.

We appreciate the editorial process and are grateful for the thorough, detailed, and constructive reviews. We will respond in detail to every point raised by reviewers in a full revision.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors examine the activity and function of D1 and D2 MSNs in dorsomedial striatum (DMS) during an interval timing task. In this task, animals must first nose poke into a cued port on the left or right; if not rewarded after 6 seconds, they must switch to the other port. Critically, this task thus requires animals to estimate if at least 6 seconds have passed after the first nose poke - this is the key aspect of the task focused on here. After verifying that animals reliably estimate the passage of 6 seconds by leaving on average after 9 seconds, the authors examine striatal activity during this interval. They report that D1-MSNs tend to decrease activity, while D2-MSNs increase activity, throughout this interval. They suggest that this activity follows a drift-diffusion model, in which activity increases (or decreases) to a threshold after which a decision (to leave) is made. The authors next report that optogenetically inhibiting D1 or D2 MSNs, or pharmacologically blocking D1 and D2 receptors, increased the average wait time of the animals to 10 seconds on average. This suggests that both D1 and D2 neurons contribute to the estimate of time, with a decrease in their activity corresponding to a decrease in the rate of 'drift' in their drift-diffusion model. Lastly, the authors examine MSN activity while pharmacologically inhibiting D1 or D2 receptors. The authors observe most recorded MSNs neurons decrease their activity over the interval, with the rate decreasing with D1/D2 receptor inhibition.

Major strengths:

The study employs a wide range of techniques - including animal behavioral training, electrophysiology, optogenetic manipulation, pharmacological manipulations, and computational modeling. The behavioral task used by the authors is quite interesting and a nice way to probe interval timing in rodents. The question posed by the authors - how striatal activity contributes to interval timing - is of importance to the field and has been the focus of many studies and labs; thus, this paper can meaningfully contribute to that conversation. The data within the paper is presented very clearly, and the authors have done a nice job presenting the data in a transparent manner (e.g., showing individual cells and animals). Overall, the manuscript is relatively easy to read and clear, with sufficient detail given in most places regarding the experimental paradigm or analyses used.

We are glad our main points came through to the reviewer.

Major weaknesses:

I perceive two major weaknesses. The first is the impact or contextualization of their results in terms of the results of the field more broadly. More specifically, it was not clear to me how the authors are interpreting the striatal activity in the context of what others have observed during interval timing tasks. In other words - what was the hypothesis going into this experiment? Does observing increasing/decreasing activity in D2 versus D1 support one model of interval timing over another, or does it further support a more specific idea of how DMS contributes to interval timing? Or was the main question that we didn't know if D2 or D1 neurons had differential activity during interval timing?

Our hypothesis, based on prior behavioral work from our group describing that blocking striatal D1 and D2 dopamine receptors impaired interval timing (De Corte et al., 2019; Stutt et al., 2023) was D1 and D2 MSNs would have similar patterns of activity during interval timing. We will clarify this in the revision.

In the second, I felt that some of the conclusions suggested by the authors don't seem entirely supported by the data they present, or the data presented suggests a slightly more complicated story. Below I provide additional detail on some of these instances.

Regarding the results presented in Figures 2 and 3:

I am not sure the PC analysis adds much to the interpretation, and potentially unnecessarily complicates things. In particular, running PCA on a matrix of noisy data that is smoothed with a Gaussian will often return PCs similar to what is observed by the authors, with the first PC being a line up/down, the 2nd PC being a parabola that is up/down, etc. Thus, I'm not sure that there is much to be interpreted by the specific shape of the PCs here.

These are insightful points. We will clarify details of our PCA analysis in the revision. We include PCA for comparisons with our past work (Emmons et al., 2017, 2021; Bruce et al., 2021). Second, it is true that these components can be observed in smoothed data; however, when we generated random data using identical parameters, we found that the variance explained by PC1 was not commonly observed in random data. Third, our goal is to compare between D1 and D2 MSNs, not to interpret the PCs. We will make this explicit in our revision.

I think an alternative analysis that might be both easier and more informative is to compute the slope of the activity of each neuron across the 6 seconds. This would allow the authors to quantify how many neurons increase or decrease their activity much like what is shown in Figure 2.

This is exactly the analysis shown in Figure 3D. We will clarify this in the revision.

Relatedly, it seems that the data shown in Figure 2D doesn't support the authors' main claim regarding D2/D1 MSNs increasing/decreasing their activity, as the trial-by-trial slope is near 0 for both cell types.

This likely refers to Figure 3D. In the revision, we will clarify this analysis, add error bars, and note that our goal was to differentiate D2 and D1 MSNs in this analysis. We will also add to this analysis to better make the poin that D2 and D1 MSNs are distinct, contrary to our hypothesis.

Regarding the results in Figure 4:

The authors suggest that their data is consistent with a drift-diffusion model. However, it is unclear how well the output from the model fits the activity from neurons the authors recorded. Relatedly, it is unclear how the parameters were chosen for the D1/D2 versions of this model. I think that an alternate approach that would answer these questions is to fit the model to each cell, and then examine the best-fit parameters, as well as the ability of the model to predict activity on trials held out from the fitting process. This would provide a more rigorous method to identify the best parameters and would directly quantify how well the model captures the data.

This is a great point. Our goal was to fit behavioral activity, not neuronal activity; in our revision, we will do exactly what the reviewer suggests and present data of fits to neuronal activity.

Relatedly, looking at the raw data in Figure 2, it seems that many neurons either fire at the beginning or end of the interval, with more neurons firing at the end, and more firing at the beginning, for D2/D1 neurons respectively. Thus, it's not clear to me whether the drift-diffusion model is a good model of activity. Or, perhaps the model is supposed to be related to the aggregate activity of all D1/D2 neurons? (If so, this should be made more explicit. The comment about fitting the model directly to the data also still stands).

Our model was inspired by the averages in Figure 2G&H; however, we will fit drift-diffusion models to individual neurons exactly as the reviewer suggests.

Further, it's unclear to me how, or why, the authors changed the specific parameters they used to model the optogenetic manipulation. Were these parameters chosen because they fit the manipulation data? This I don't think is in itself an issue, but perhaps should be clearly stated, because otherwise it sounds a bit odd given the parameter changes are so specific. It is also not clear to me why the noise in the diffusion process would be expected to change with increased inhibition.

We will clarify this in our revision, as this is an important point.

Regarding the results in Figure 6:

My comments regarding the interpretation of PCs in Figure 2 apply here as well. In addition, I am not sure that examining PC2 adds much here, given that the authors didn't examine such nonlinear changes earlier in the paper.

We agree – we will remove PC2 in Figure 6 and Figure S9 and add context to the PC analysis noting that we are including for 1) comparisons with past work, 2) our observed variance is much higher than observed in random/smoothed data, and 3) we are primarily interested in comparisons between conditions rather than interpreting the components.

A larger concern though that seems potentially at odds with the authors' interpretation is that there seems to be very little change in the firing pattern after D1 or D2 blockade. I see that in Figure 6F the authors suggest that many cells slope down (and thus, presumably, they are recoding more D1 cells), and that this change in slope is decreased, but this effect is not apparent in Figure 6C, and Figure 6B shows an example of a cell that seems to fire in the opposite direction (increase activity). I think it would help to show some (more) individual examples that demonstrate the summary effect shown by the authors, and perhaps the authors can comment on the robustness (or the variability) of this result.

We agree, although we note D1/D2 blockade changes PC1, which explains the most variance in MSN activity. In the revision, we will show more examples and comment on the robustness of PC1, exactly as the reviewer recommends. The changes in PC1 are rather consistent.

Also, it seems that if the authors want to claim that this manipulation lowers the drift rate. I think to make this claim, they could fit the DDM model and examine whether D is significantly lower.

This is a great idea – we will try to do this.

Regarding the results in Figure 7:

I am overall a bit confused about what the authors are trying to claim here. In Figure 7, they present data suggesting that D1 or D2 blockade disrupts their ability to decode time in the interval of interest (0-6 seconds). However, in the final paragraph of the results, the authors seem to say that by using another technique, they didn't see any significant change in decoding accuracy after D1 or D2 blockade. What do the authors make of this?

We were not clear. The second classifier was predicting response time. This was confusing and we will remove it.

Impact:

The task and data presented by the authors are very intriguing, and there are many groups interested in how striatal activity contributes to the neural perception of time. The authors perform a wide variety of experiments and analysis to examine how DMS activity influences time perception during an interval-timing task, allowing for insight into this process. However, the significance of the key finding - that D2/D1 activity increases/ decreases with time - remains somewhat ambiguous to me. This arises from a lack of clarity regarding the initial hypothesis and the implications of this finding for advancing our understanding of striatal functions.

Again, we are grateful for the constructive and very insightful comments that we look forward to clarifying in a full revision.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors investigated the neural coding mechanisms for D1- and D2-expressing striatal direct and indirect pathway MSNs in interval timing by using multiple strategies. They concluded that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs have opposing temporal dynamics yet disrupting either type produced similar effects on behavior, indicating the complementary roles of D1- and D2- MSNs in cognitive processing. However, the data was incomplete to fully support this major finding. One major reason is the heterogenetic responses within the D1-or D2-MSN populations. In addition, there are additional concerns about the statistical methods used. For example, the majority of the statistical tests are based on the number of neurons, but not the number of mice. It appears that the statistical difference was due to the large sample size they used (n=32 D2-MSNs and n=41 D1-MSNs), but different neurons recorded in the same mouse cannot be treated as independent samples; they should use independent mouse-based statistical analysis.

Strengths:

The authors used multiple approaches including awake mice behavior training, optogenetic-assistant cell-type specific recording, optogenetic or pharmacological manipulation, neural computation, and modeling to study neuronal coding for interval timing.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful read recognizing the breadth of our approach.

Weaknesses:

(1) More detailed behavior results should be shown, including the rate of the success switches, and how long it takes to wait in the second nose poke to get a reward. For line 512 and the Figure 1 legend, the reviewer is not clear about the reward delivery. The methods appear to state that the mouse had to wait for 18s, then make nose pokes at the second port to get the reward. What happens if the mouse made the second nose poke before 18 seconds, but then exited? Would the mouse still get the reward at 18 seconds? Similarly, what happens if the mice made the third or more nosepokes within 18 seconds? It is important to clarify because, according to the method described, if the mice made a second nose poke before 18 seconds, this already counted as the mouse making the "switch." Lastly, what if the mice exited before 6s in the first nosepoke?

We agree. These were presented in detail in our prior work (Bruce et al., 2021; Larson et al., 2022; and Weber et al., 2023) and work from others (Balci et al 2008; Tosun et al., 2016. However, we will work on a detailed behavioral schematic in the revision and move supplementary behavioral data in Figure S1 to the main manuscript.

(2) There are a lot of time parameters in this behavior task, the description of those time parameters is mentioned in several parts, in the figure legend, supplementary figure legend, and methods, but was not defined clearly in the main text. It is inconvenient, sometimes, confusing for the readers. The authors should make a schematic diagram to illustrate the major parameters and describe them clearly in the main text.

This is a great suggestion – we will do this – and clarify in the above schematic.

(3) In Line 508, the reviewer suggests the authors pay attention to those trials without "switch". It would be valuable to compare the MSN activity between those trials with or without a "switch".

We analyzed MSN activity on errors in detail Figure 6 of Bruce et al., 2021. These errors are infrequent and inconsistent – we will discuss this in the revision.

(4) The definition of interval is not very clear. It appears that the authors used a 6-second interval in analyzing the data in Figure 2 and Figure 3. But from my understanding, the interval should be the time from time "0" to the "switch", when the mice start to exit from the first nose poke.

We agree. The switch time can be vastly different on some trials, making it challenging to compare different lengths and slopes. However, we will clarify the interval as noted above, and we have a few ideas on how to do the analysis the reviewer suggests.

(5) For Figure 2 C-F, the authors only recorded 32 D2-MSNs in 4 mice, and 41 D1-MSNs in 5 mice. The sample size is too small compared to the sample size usually used in the field. In addition to the small sample size, the single-cell activity exhibited heterogeneity, which created potential issues. For both D1 and D2 MSNs, the authors tried to make conclusions on the "trend" of increasing in D2-MSNs and decreasing in D1-MSNs populations, respectively, during the interval. However, such a conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the data presented. It looks like the single-cell activity patterns can be separated into groups: one is a decreasing activity group, one is an increasing activity group and a small group for on and off response. Because of the small sample size, the author should pay attention to the variance across different mice (which needs to be clearly presented in the manuscript), instead of pooling data together and analyzing the mean activity.

We were not clear – we did this analysis exactly the reviewer suggested. We are not pooling any data – instead – as we state on line 620 – we are using linear-mixed effects models to account for mouse-specific and neuron-specific variance. This approach was developed with our statistics core for exactly the reasons the reviewer suggested. Furthermore, we will add to this analysis demonstrative that it is resistant to outliers. Finally, we will include measures of effect size noting that it is a medium to large effect.

It’s a helpful idea to plot data individually by mice, and we will do so in the revision.

(6) For Figure 2, from the activity in E and F, it seems that the activity already rose before the trial started, the authors should add some longer baseline data before time zero for clarification and comparison, and show the timing of the actual start of the activity with the corresponding behavior. What behavior states are the mice in when initiating the activity?

We can certainly include a longer baseline. We can clarify in the revision that mice initiate trials at the rear nosepoke, and this is what initiates the task cues and the temporal interval.

(7) The authors were focused on the "switch " behavior in the task, but they used an arbitrary 6s time window to analyze the activity, and tried to correlate the decreasing or increasing activities of MSNs to the neural coding for time. A better way to analyze is to sort the activity according to the "switch" time, from short to long intervals. This way, the authors could see and analyze whether the activity of D1 or D2 MSNs really codes for the different length of interval, instead of finding a correlation between average activity trends and the arbitrary 6s time window.

This is a great idea, and we have some ideas on how to adapt the GLM analysis to perform this analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The cognitive striatum, also known as the dorsomedial striatum, receives input from brain regions involved in high-level cognition and plays a crucial role in processing cognitive information. However, despite its importance, the extent to which different projection pathways of the striatum contribute to this information processing remains unclear. In this paper, Bruce et al. conducted a study using a range of causal and correlational techniques to investigate how these pathways collectively contribute to interval timing in mice. Their results were consistent with previous research, showing that the direct and indirect striatal pathways perform opposing roles in processing elapsed time. Based on their findings, the authors proposed a revised computational model in which two separate accumulators track evidence for elapsed time in opposing directions. These results have significant implications for understanding the neural mechanisms underlying cognitive impairment in neurological and psychiatric disorders, as disruptions in the balance between direct and indirect pathway activity are commonly observed in such conditions.

Strengths:

The authors employed a well-established approach to study interval timing and employed optogenetic tagging to observe the behavior of specific cell types in the striatum. Additionally, the authors utilized two complementary techniques to assess the impact of manipulating the activity of these pathways on behavior. Finally, the authors utilized their experimental findings to enhance the theoretical comprehension of interval timing using a computational model.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s consideration of our work and recognizing the strengths of our approach.

Weaknesses:

The behavioral task used in this study is best suited for investigating elapsed time perception, rather than interval timing. Timing bisection tasks are often employed to study interval timing in humans and animals.

This is certainly valid, and we will include these points in the revision.

The main results from unit recording (opposing slopes of D1/D2 cell firing rate, as shown in Figure 3D) appear to be very sensitive to a couple of outlier cells, and the predictive power of ensemble recording seems to be only slightly above chance levels.

We are glad that the reviewer raised this. We will add to this analysis demonstrative that it is resistant to outliers. Finally, we will include measures of effect size noting that it is a medium to large effect. Thus, it is significantly above chance, and rather reliable, and supported by our PCA results in Figure 3C.

In the optogenetic experiment, the laser was kept on for too long (18 seconds) at high power (12 mW). This has been shown to cause adverse effects on population activity (for example, through heating the tissue) that are not necessarily related to their function during the task epochs.

Again, this is an important point. We are well aware of heating effects with optogenetics. For the exact reasons noted by the reviewer, we had opsin-negative controls –when the laser was on the exact same time course and parameters – in Figure S5. There were no behavioral effects in controls with identical heating and other effects of the laser. Furthermore, these effects are similar to pharmacological effects in this manuscript and in our prior work (De Corte et al., 2019; Stutt et al., 2023). We will better highlight these issues in the revision.

Given the systemic delivery of pharmacological interventions, it is difficult to conclude that the effects are specific to the dorsomedial striatum. Future studies should use the local infusion of drugs into the dorsomedial striatum.

This is a great point - we did exactly this experiment in De Corte et al, 2019 with local drug infusions. This earlier study was the departure point for this experiment, although it is challenging to combine focal pharmacological inactivation with recordings in mice (we have extensive experience with this in rats in Parker et al., 2015 and Parker et al, 2015). Furthermore, we have similar local optogenetics effects in this paper. We will include these points in the revised manuscript.