Basal ganglia output - entopeduncular nucleus - coding of contextual kinematics and reward in the freely moving mouse

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors in this paper investigate the nature of the activity in the rodent EPN during a simple freely moving cue-reward association task. Given that primate literature suggests movement coding whereas other primate and rodent studies suggest mainly reward outcome coding in the EPNs, it is important to try to tease apart the two views. Through careful analysis of behavior kinematics, position, and neural activity in the EPNs, the authors reveal an interesting and complex relationship between the EPN and mouse behavior.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use a novel freely moving task to study EPN activity, which displays rich movement trajectories and kinematics. Given that previous studies have mostly looked at reward coding during head-fixed behavior, this study adds a valuable dataset to the literature.

(2) The neural analysis is rich and thorough. Both single neuron level and population level (i.e. PCA) analysis are employed to reveal what EPN encodes.

Weaknesses:

(1) One major weakness in this paper is the way the authors define the EPN neurons. Without a clear method of delineating EPN vs other surrounding regions, it is not convincing enough to call these neurons EPNs solely from looking at the electrode cannula track from Figure 2B. Indeed, EPN is a very small nucleus and previous studies like Stephenson-Jones et al (2016) have used opto-tagging of Vglut2 neurons to precisely label EPN single neurons. Wallace et al (2017) have also shown the existence of SOM and PV-positive neurons in the EPN. By not using transgenic lines and cell-type specific approaches to label these EPN neurons, the authors miss the opportunity to claim that the neurons recorded in this study do indeed come from EPN. The authors should at least consider showing an analysis of neurons slightly above or below EPN and show that these neurons display different waveforms or firing patterns.

(2) The authors fail to replicate the main finding about EPN neurons which is that they encode outcome in a negative manner. Both Stephenson-Jones et al (2016) and Hong and Hikosaka (2008) show a reward response during the outcome period where firing goes down during reward and up during neutral or aversive outcome. However, Figure 2 G top panel shows that the mean population is higher during correct trials and lower during incorrect trials. This could be interesting given that the authors might try recording from another part of EPN that has not been studied before. However, without convincing evidence that the neurons recorded are from EPN in the first place (point 1), it is hard to interpret these results and reconcile them with previous studies.

1. The authors say that: 'reward and kinematic doing are not mutually exclusive, challenging the notion of distinct pathways and movement processing'. However, it is not clear whether the data presented in this work supports this statement. First, the authors have not attempted to record from the entire EPN. Thus it is possible that the coding might be more segregated in other parts of EPN. Second, EPNs have previously been shown to display positive firing for negative outcomes and vice versa, something which the authors do not find here. It is possible that those neurons might not encode kinematic and movement variables. Thus, the authors should point out in the main text the possibility that the EPN activity recorded might be missing some parts of the whole EPN.

4). The authors use an IR beam system to record licks and make a strong claim about the nature of lick encoding in the EPN. However, the authors should note that IR beam system is not the most accurate way of detecting licks given that any object blocking the path (paw or jaw-dropping) will be detected as lick events. Capacitance based, closed-loop detection, or video capturing is better suited to detect individual licks. Given that the authors are interested in kinematics of licking, this is important. The authors should either point this out in the main text or verify in the system if the IR beam is correctly detecting licks using a combination of those methods.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper examined how the activity of neurons in the entopeduncular nucleus (EPN) of mice relates to kinematics, value, and reward. The authors recorded neural activity during an auditory-cued two-alternative choice task, allowing them to examine how neuronal firing relates to specific movements like licking or paw movements, as well as how contextual factors like task stage or proximity to a goal influence the coding of kinematic and spatiotemporal features. The data shows that the firing of individual neurons is linked to kinematic features such as lick or step cycles. However, the majority of neurons exhibited activity related to both movement types, suggesting that EPN neuronal activity does not merely reflect muscle-level representations. This contradicts what would be expected from traditional action selection or action specification models of the basal ganglia.

The authors also show that spatiotemporal variables account for more variability compared to kinematic features alone. Using demixed Principal Component Analysis, they reveal that at the population level, the three principal components explaining the most variance were related to specific temporal or spatial features of the task, such as ramping activity as mice approached reward ports, rather than trial outcome or specific actions. Notably, this activity was present in neurons whose firing was also modulated by kinematic features, demonstrating that individual EPN neurons integrate multiple features. A weakness is that what the spatiotemporal activity reflects is not well specified. The authors suggest some may relate to action value due to greater modulation when approaching a reward port, but acknowledge action value is not well parametrized or separated from variables like reward expectation.

A key goal was to determine whether activity related to expected value and reward delivery arose from a distinct population of EPN neurons or was also present in neurons modulated by kinematic and spatiotemporal features. In contrast to previous studies (Hong & Hikosaka 2008 and Stephenson-Jones et al., 2016), the current data reveals that individual neurons can exhibit modulation by both reward and kinematic parameters. Two potential differences may explain this discrepancy: First, the previous studies used head-fixed recordings, where it may have been easier to isolate movement versus reward-related responses. Second, those studies observed prominent phasic responses to the delivery or omission of expected rewards - responses largely absent in the current paper. This absence suggests a possibility that neurons exhibiting such phasic "reward" responses were not sampled, which is plausible since in both primates and rodents, these neurons tend to be located in restricted topographic regions. Alternatively, in the head-fixed recordings, kinematic/spatial coding may have gone undetected due to the forced immobility.

Overall, this paper offers needed insight into how the basal ganglia output encodes behavior. The EPN recordings from freely moving mice clearly demonstrate that individual neurons integrate reward, kinematic, and spatiotemporal features, challenging traditional models. However, the specific relationship between spatiotemporal activity and factors like action value remains unclear.