Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The following points are those that occurred to me across readings of the paper. They are listed in what I take to be the order of their significance. Many of the points relate to the loose use of language and invocation of concepts that are not warranted, given the study design and results obtained.
Major Comments:
(1) The concept of ensemble turnover is interesting - the way it is introduced and discussed implies some type of spontaneous change in the neural underpinnings of fear discrimination and generalization in the PL. But, of course, every trial involves an opportunity to learn about the threat CS or the generalization test stimuli, and I am troubled by the thought that stability in the neural underpinnings of fear discrimination and generalization will actually reflect the level of defensive behaviours evoked on different trial types and/or the discrepancy between those behaviours and the outcome of a given trial in the generalization test. That is, stability in the neural underpinnings may be related to an animal's certainty or uncertainty in the contingency between a stimulus and danger; or, put another way, an animal's confidence that danger will or won't occur given the presence of some stimulus. This is not uninteresting. It is, however, not considered anywhere in the paper, which is overloaded with references to inferred threat values and integration of information across different types of stimuli. The protocol is not one that requires inference about anything or integration across anything.
(2) I appreciate the link to Gu and Johansen in paragraph 3 of the Introduction, but the type of generalization under investigation here is not the same as the type of 'generalization' studied by Gu and Johansen [who used a sensory preconditioning protocol]. Nonetheless, the authors have forced the language used by Gu and Johansen into their paper, and this has created tension [at least for this reader] as the concepts introduced by Gu and Johansen [inference, integration] are simply not relevant given the generalization protocol used here. Here are a few examples of points where the tension might interfere with a reader's understanding:
a. 'We hypothesized that generalization to novel stimuli depends on stable subnetwork organization that enables comparisons between learned and inferred valence, as well as population-level features that reduce variability across related representations.'
I understand the words in the hypothesis, but can't form a representation of what is being said because of the reference to terms that stand in need of clarification [inferred valence, variability across related representations], but, ultimately, won't be clarified. This needs to be re-expressed so that the reader can appreciate what is being said.
b. 'Our results show that stable cortical subnetworks integrate the emotional "gist" of memory and inferred valence for novel cues over time, despite ongoing ensemble reorganization, and that population-level firing rate similarity across stimulus presentations determines threat generalization.'
Again, what does this mean? How is the gist of a memory integrated with inferred valence for novel cues over time? The statement simply doesn't make sense. This needs to be rewritten for clarity.
c. 'In CS⁺15 mice, positively modulated sound-responsive neurons exhibited graded tone activity reflecting the contingency learned valence as well as the inferred valence of novel tones across testing days...'.
Can this be rewritten as 'In CS⁺15 mice, positively modulated sound-responsive neurons exhibited graded activity to the tone CS and its variants that were used to assess generalization.'? The overloading of the text with references to 'contingency learned valence' and 'inferred valence' is unnecessary and makes it much harder to understand what has been shown in the results.
(3) Re the same passage of text as in 2c:
Is it the case that these neurons are simply tracking the expression of freezing to the various tones? The same question applies to the results obtained for the CS+3 mice. If this is the case, then why should the results be taken to support the banner statement that 'Sound-modulated PL population responses encode learned and inferred valence' - these analyses do not support that statement. And, as indicated, I don't believe that the language of learned and inferred valence is appropriate to such statements, given the nature of the protocol used and results obtained. It is a study looking at how populations of neurons in the PL respond during presentations of auditory stimuli that were subject to discriminative conditioning, and during tests of generalized freezing to other [intermediate] auditory stimuli.
(4) It is stated that:
'In no-shock controls, although both positive and negative responses were present, population activity was not modulated by tone frequency or valence'.
What does this mean? I can understand that population activity was not modulated by tone frequency. But what does it mean to say that it was not modulated by valence? Why should it have been when none of the tones were conditioned in this group and, hence, mice were responding to all the tones equally? And given that this is true, I don't understand the use of 'valence' here, or the subsequent statements in this paragraph that 'graded responses require associative learning' and that 'PL population responses encode graded sound-valence associations that reflect both learning and inference, closely matching behavioral generalization.' The latter statement is particularly unwarranted and, again, highlights a major issue with the paper. It could and should be rewritten as 'PL population responses reflect behavioral generalization.' There is nothing in the additional language that adds to the reader's understanding of what has been shown. The reference to 'graded sound-valence associations that reflect both learning and inference' is completely unwarranted, given the nature of this study. It is anathema to the vast literature on stimulus generalization. If the authors wished to make statements of this sort, they should have taken a different approach, perhaps using protocols like those featured in Gu and Johansen.
(5) The section titled, 'Consistently active neurons preserve valence representations as newly recruited neurons sharpen remote memory traces' ends with the following summary:
'Together, these results indicate that consistently active neurons maintain stable representations of learned and inferred sound associations across time, whereas neurons recruited after conditioning progressively acquire graded tuning at later retrieval stages. This dynamic refinement suggests that cortical memory representations become increasingly selective during systems consolidation, while a stable neuronal subpopulation preserves the core emotional content of the memory.'
Once again, the summary is not in keeping with the results obtained. The 'dynamic refinement' of representations is far more likely to reflect the repeated testing across days 1, 15, and 30 rather than anything to do with systems consolidation - at the very least, it is the simplest interpretation of the results. The impact of repeated testing is evident in the sharpening of generalization gradients over time, which is contrary to what is otherwise observed in the literature - the incredibly well -documented broadening of generalization gradients with time. Given this impact of repeated testing, surely the changes in the neuronal population that underlie performance are more likely to reflect the learning that occurs on days 1, 15, and 30, which is reflected in reduced freezing to the non-conditioned tones. If this is a reasonable take on the results, then I don't see the basis for invoking systems consolidation at all, and I don't see the basis for inferring a stable neuronal subpopulation that preserves the emotional content of the memory. Rather, non-reinforced presentations of 'never-reinforced' tones result in recruitment of additional neurons that result in suppression of freezing responses to those stimuli.
(6) In the section titled, 'Population vector similarity at stimulus onset determines degree of generalization', it is stated that:
'Because population similarity peaked shortly after stimulus onset, we quantified similarity during the first 5 s after tone onset relative to the CS⁺. In CS⁺15 mice, population similarity was highest for 15/15 and 15/11 tone pairs with no differences between them.'
Isn't this consistent with the view that the population response in the PL simply reflects the level of freezing? Freezing to the 15-15 and 15-11 tones is most likely to be similar on their first presentation prior to the effects of extinction on the 11 Hz tone; hence the results obtained. That is, these results appear to clearly indicate that neuronal responses in the PL reflect the degree of stimulus generalization, as evidenced in freezing behavior. Given all that we know about the involvement of the PL in expressing fear responses, it is not appropriate to claim that 'population vector similarity at stimulus onset *determines* the degree of generalization. The PL responses simply reflect the varying levels of performance displayed to the different types of tones. What have I missed that could be taken to support additional statements?
Later in the same section, it is stated that 'population-level similarity at stimulus onset scales with behavioral threat generalization and is maximal for tones associated with robust threat responses.' For simplicity and, therefore, clarity, this should be rewritten as 'population-level similarity at stimulus onset reflects behavioral threat generalization.'
(7) In the section titled, 'Different subnetworks encode acoustic versus learned properties of sound association', it is stated that:
'Our previous analyses show that learned and inferred associations are represented at the population level. However, these results do not resolve whether graded responses arise from pooled activity of frequency-selective neurons or from subnetworks encoding integrated learned valence across tones.'
What does it mean to say 'integrated learned valence across tones'? As it presently stands, the meaning of the phrase is unclear. It only makes sense if one supposes that generalized freezing responses to the 11 and 7 kHZ tones reflect separate associations between those tones and the aversive foot shock US. This supposition is inconsistent with the rich literature on generalization of Pavlovian conditioned fear responses. Specifically, it is inconsistent with the many theories of fear generalization, which attribute the reduction in fear as one moves away from the specific conditioned stimulus to a decrement in the ability of the test stimulus to activate the trained CS-US association. My strong impression is that the authors would do well to ground their findings in theories of stimulus/fear generalization, of which there are many. This would better serve the results obtained [and the reader's appreciation of them] - at present, the unnecessary invocation of concepts does very little to enhance the reader's appreciation or understanding of what has been found in the study.
(8) Another example of what has been a common theme in this review :
'...we hypothesized that the PL active ensemble segregates into functionally distinct subnetworks: one encoding tone-specific sensory features with dynamic characteristics, and another responding to all frequencies encoding stable core memory content and inferred emotional valence.'
What does it mean to say 'all frequencies encoding stable core memory content and inferred emotional valence'? Do the authors mean to say '...and another that tracks freezing/defensive responses regardless of whether they were elicited by the trained CS or one of the generalization test stimuli'?
(9) It is stated that - 'Graded clusters encode emotional valence but constitute only a fraction of the active population; yet valence coding at the population level remains accurate and precise. This indicates that neurons newly recruited into the population-likely frequency-selective and organized within learning-independent clusters-can be shaped by associative processes through modulation of firing activity.'
What does this mean? Are the authors trying to say that - 'Some clusters of PL neurons track freezing responses. In spite of the fact that these are only a fraction of the total active neuronal population, the population-level response of PL neurons also tracks the levels of fear to the trained tone and its variants used in the test for generalization.' If this is what one wants to say, then the final statement in the reproduced section does not follow. That is, there is no indication that 'neurons newly recruited into the population-likely frequency-selective and organized within learning-independent clusters-can be shaped by associative processes through modulation of firing activity.' As noted, the characteristics of other ensembles that become active across the repeated tests on days 1, 15, and 30 are more likely to reflect learning from non-reinforcement that occurs within and across those sessions. Perhaps this is what is meant by the phrase, 'shaped by associative processes'? If so, it should be stated explicitly instead of left to the reader to work out.
(10) The following points all relate to the Discussion and reiterate many of the points above.
a. 'A subset of neurons remains consistently active across sessions, preserving core components of the memory trace and supporting inference of emotional valence for novel sounds, while neurons recruited after conditioning progressively acquire valence selectivity at remote time points.'
'Inference of emotional valence' is unclear and unwarranted for all of the reasons provided above regarding the use of language.
b. '...Our data reconcile these views by demonstrating that cortical representations of emotional valence emerge rapidly after learning and persist within stable subnetworks, even as the broader population undergoes substantial turnover. This architecture preserves core mnemonic content while allowing flexibility in the surrounding ensemble.'
These statements assume that the PL neuronal responses reflect something more than the levels of freezing behavior to the different stimuli; what are the grounds for this assumption?
c. 'Importantly, these subnetworks encode both learned contingencies and the inferred valence of novel stimuli along a graded representational axis, suggesting that strong recurrent connectivity provides a stable scaffold for emotional memory representations.'
What is a graded representational axis, and what part of the first statement suggests that 'strong recurrent connectivity provides a stable scaffold for emotional memory representations'? If the authors' goal was to make statements about emotional memory representations vis-à-vis emotional memory content, they should have used protocols that allowed them to probe such content. The auditory fear conditioning protocol used here [followed by tests for generalization to other auditory stimuli that differ in frequency from the conditioned tone] is not one that lends itself to analysis of emotional memory representations or content.
d. 'Dynamic tone-selective responsive neurons emerge independently of learning, as they are present in both control and experimental mice, reflecting pre-existing PL sensory-driven properties (Hockley & Malmierca, 2024; Zikopoulos & Barbas, 2006).'
Maybe. They are also likely to have developed as a consequence of the repeated testing on days 1, 15, and 30, which involved intermixed exposures to the tones of different frequencies. That is, rather than 'pre-existing PL sensory-driven properties', the responses of these neurons might reflect the emergence of discrimination between the various tones across testing, and greater suppression of freezing to the non-trained tones compared to the trained tone across the various test intervals.