Abstract Objective Head direction cell and place cell spatially tuned firing is often anchored to salient visual landmarks on the periphery of a recording environment. What is less well understood is whether structural features of an environment, such as orientation of a maze sub‐compartment or a polarizing barrier, can likewise control spatial firing. Method We recorded from 54 head direction cells in the medial entorhinal cortex and subicular region of male Lister Hooded rats while they explored an apparatus with four parallel or four radially arranged compartments (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we recorded from 130 place cells (in Lister‐ and Long‐Evans Hooded rats) and 30 head direction cells with 90° rotations of a cue card and a barrier in a single environment (Experiment 2). Results We found that head direction cells maintained a similar preferred firing direction across four separate maze compartments even when these faced different directions (Experiment 1). However, in an environment with a single compartment, we observed that both a barrier and a cue card exerted comparable amounts of stimulus control over head direction cells and place cells (Experiment 2). Conclusion The maintenance of a stable directional orientation across maze compartments suggests that the head direction cell system has the capacity to provide a global directional reference that allows the animal to distinguish otherwise similar maze compartments based on the compartment's orientation. A barrier is, however, capable of controlling spatially tuned firing in an environment in which it is the sole polarizing feature.

The head direction cell system is an interconnected set of brain structures containing neurons whose firing is directionally tuned. The robust representation of allocentric direction by head direction cells suggests that they provide a neural compass for the animal. However, evidence linking head direction cells and spatial behavior has been mixed. Whereas damage to the hippocampus yields profound deficits in a range of spatial tasks, lesions to the head direction cell system often yield milder impairments in spatial behavior. In addition, correlational approaches have shown a correspondence between head direction cells and spatial behavior in some tasks, but not others. These mixed effects may be explained in part by a new view of the head direction cell system arising from recent demonstrations of at least two types of head direction cells: 'traditional' cells, and a second class of 'sensory' cells driven by polarising features of an environment. The recognition of different kinds of head direction cells now allows a nuanced assessment of this system's role in guiding navigation.

Previous results suggest that directional information from the head direction cell circuit may inform hippocampal place cell firing when an animal is confronted with visually identical environments. To investigate whether such information might also be essential for spatial behavior, we tested adult, male Lister Hooded rats that had received either bilateral lateral mammillary nuclei (LMN) lesions or sham lesions on a four-way, conditional odor-location discrimination in compartments arranged at 60° to one another. We found that significantly fewer rats in the LMN lesion group were able to learn the task compared to the Sham group. We also found that the extent of the behavioral impairment was highly correlated with the degree of tissue loss in the LMN resulting from the lesion. Animals with LMN lesions were also impaired in a nonmatching-to-sample task in a T maze, and the extent of impairment likewise depended on the extent of the lesion. Performance in the odor-location and T-maze tasks was not affected by tissue loss in the medial mammillary nuclei. Together, these results indicate that the LMN, a key node in the head direction circuit, is critical for solving a spatial task that requires a directional discrimination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Recognition memory enables us to judge whether we have encountered a stimulus before and to recall associated information, including where the stimulus was encountered. The perirhinal cortex (PRh) is required for judgment of stimulus familiarity, while hippocampus (HPC) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) are additionally involved when spatial information associated with a stimulus needs to be remembered. While gene expression is known to be essential for the consolidation of long-term recognition memory, the underlying regulatory mechanisms are not fully understood. Here we investigated the roles of two epigenetic mechanisms, DNA methylation and histone deacetylation, in recognition memory. Infusion of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors into PRh impaired performance in novel object recognition and object-in-place tasks while infusions into HPC or mPFC impaired object-in-place performance only. In contrast, inhibition of histone deacetylases in PRh, but not mPFC, enhanced recognition memory. These results support the emerging role of epigenetic processes in learning and memory.