Nonlinear feedback modulation contributes to the optimization of flexible decision-making

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This valuable study by Wu and Zhou combined neurophysiological recordings and computational modelling to investigate the neural mechanisms that underpin the interaction between sensory evaluation and action selection. The neurophysiological results suggest non-linear modulation of decision-related LIP activity by action selection, but some further analysis would be helpful in order to understand whether these results can be generalised to LIP circuitry or might be dependent on specific spatial task configurations. The authors present solid computational evidence that this might be due to projections from choice target representations. These results are of interest for neuroscientists investigating decision-making.

Strengths:

Wu and Zhou combine awake behaving neurophysiology for a sophisticated, flexible visual-motion discrimination task and a recurrent network model to disentangle the contribution of sensory evaluation and action selection to LIP firing patterns. The correct saccade response direction for preferred motion direction choices is randomly interleaved between contralateral and ipsilateral response targets, which allows the dissociation of perceptual choice from saccade direction.
The neurophysiological recordings from area LIP indicate non-linear interaction between motion categorisation decisions and saccade choice direction.

The careful investigation of a recurrent network model suggests that feedback from choice target representations to an earlier sensory evaluation stage might be the source for this non-linear modulation and that it is an important circuit component for behavioural performance.

The paper presents a possible solution to a central controversy about the role of LIP in perceptual decision-making, but see below.

Weaknesses:

The paper presents a possible solution to a central controversy about the role of LIP in perceptual decision-making. However, the authors could be more clear and upfront about their interpretational framework and potential alternative interpretations.
Centrally, the authors' model and experimental data appears to test only that LIP carries out sensory evaluation in its RFs. The model explicitly parks the representation of choice targets outside the "LIP" module receiving sensory input. The feedback from this separate target representation provides then the non-linear modulation that matches the neurophysiology. However, they ignore the neurophysiological results that LIP neurons can also represent motor planning to a saccade target.
The neurophysiological results with a modulation of the direction tuning by choice direction (contralateral vs ipsilateral) are intriguing. However, the evaluation of the neurophysiological results are difficult, because some of the necessary information is missing to exclude alternative explanations. It would be good to see the actual distributions and sizes of the RF, which were determined based on visual responses not with a delayed saccade task. There might be for example a simple spatial configuration, for example, RF and preferred choice target in the same (contralateral) hemifield, for which there is an increase in firing. It is a shame that we do not see what these neurons would do if only a choice target would be put in the RF, as has been done in so many previous LIP experiments. The authors exclude also some spatial task configurations (vertical direction decisions), which makes it difficult to judge whether these data and models can be generalised. The whole section is difficult to follow, partly also because it appears to mix reporting results with interpretation (e.g. "feedback").

The model and its investigation is very interesting and thorough, but given the neurophysiological literature on LIP, it is not clear that the target module would need to be in a separate brain area, but could be local circuitry within LIP between different neuron types.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors recorded activity in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) of monkeys performing a perceptual decision-making task. The monkeys were first shown two choice dots of two different colors. Then, they saw a random dot motion stimulus. They had to learn to categorize the direction of motion as referring to either the right or left dot. However, the rule was based on the color of the dot and not its location. So, the red dot could either be to the right or left, but the rule itself remained the same. It is known from past work that PPC neurons would code the learned categorization. Here, the authors showed that the categorization signal depended on whether the executed saccade was in the same hemifield as the recorded PPC neuron or in the opposite one. That is, if a neuron categorized the two motion directions such that it responded stronger for one than the other, then this differential motion direction coding effect was amplified if the subsequent choice saccade was in the same hemifield. The authors then built a computational RNN to replicate the results and make further tests by simulated "lesions".

Strengths:

Linking the results to RNN simulations and simulated lesions.

Weaknesses:

Potential interpretational issues due to a lack of evidence on what happens at the time of the saccades.