Binding in hippocampal-entorhinal circuits
enables compositionality in cognitive maps

Our first set of normative requirements is that space is represented by a compositional code that has high spatial resolution, is noise-robust, and in which algebraic operations on the components can be updated in parallel. Prior work [fiete2008grid, sreenivasan2011grid] has proposed the residue number system (RNS) [garner1959residue] as a candidate for fulfilling these requirements. An RNS expresses an integer $x$ in terms of its remainder relative to a set of co-prime moduli $\{m_{i}\}$. For example, relative to moduli $\{3,5,7\}$, $x=40$ is encoded as $\{1,0,5\}$. The Chinese Remainder Theorem guarantees that all integers in the range $[0,M-1]$, where $M=\prod_{i}m_{i}$, are assigned a unique representation. An RNS provides high spatial resolution, carry-free arithmetic operations, and robust error correction [goldreich1999chinese]. Experimental observations in entorhinal cortex show a discrete multi-scale organization of spatial grid cells [stensola2012entorhinal] that is compatible with an organization into discrete RNS modules.

The second normative principle we adopt is that an individual residue value should be encoded by a neural population in a similarity-preserving fashion. In particular, we require that distinct integer values are represented with nearly orthogonal vectors. To achieve this principle, we use a method similar to random Fourier features [rahimi2007random]. Each modulus, with value $m_{i}$, is assigned a seed phasor vector, $\mathbf{g}_{i}\in\mathbb{C}^{D}$, whose elements $(\mathbf{g}_{i})_{j}$ are drawn uniformly from the $m_{i}$-th roots of unity (i.e., $(\mathbf{g}_{i})_{j}=e^{\sqrt{-1}\,\omega_{ij}}$, with $\omega_{ij}=\frac{2\pi}{m_{i}}\,k_{j}$, and $k_{j}$ chosen randomly from $\{0,...,m_{i}-1\}$). The representation of a particular residue value $a_{i}\in\{0,\dots,m_{i}-1\}$ is then given by rotating the phases of the seed vector according to [plate1992holographic]:

where we abuse notation slightly to also think of $\mathbf{g}_{i}$ as a function that takes $a_{i}$ as input and produces an embedding as described above. The complex-valued vectors can be mapped to interpretable population vectors via a randomized Fourier transform (Figures 6D and S2).

Our third normative principle concerns the manner in which a unique representation of a particular point in space is formed from the individual residue representations. This requires that we somehow combine the residue vectors for each modulus. Combining via concatenation, though straightforward, is not effective because codes that coincide in subsets of their residue representation would be similar, even when the encoded values are very different. Thus, the method of combining residue codes must be conjunctive. Conjunctive composition is often called binding and is of fundamental importance in neuroscience [MalsburgAssemblies1986], cognitive science [FodorCritical1988], and machine learning [greff2020binding]. An early proposal for binding is the tensor product of representation vectors [SmolenskyTensor1990], with the tensor order equal to the number of bound objects.

Here, we implement binding with component-wise vector multiplication, a dimensionality preserving operation that represents a lossy compression of the full tensor product [plate1991holographic, kanerva2009hyperdimensional]. The resulting compositional vector representation of an integer $x\in\mathbb{Z}$ using an RNS representation with $K$ moduli, $\{a_{1},a_{2},..,a_{K}\}$, is:

We prove in Appendix A.1 that this coding scheme represents distinct integer states using nearly orthogonal vectors, and that it generalizes in a natural way to support representation of arbitrary real numbers in a similarity preserving fashion.

Eq. 2 represents individual points along a line. In general, however, a spatial representation involves points in 2D or 3D spaces. Conveniently, vector binding can be also used to compose representations of multidimensional lattices from vectors representing individual dimensions. As we will explain, there is still a choice in this composition that determines the resulting lattice structure. Following earlier proposals [wei2015principle, mathis2015probable, anselmi2020computational], our fourth normative principle is to choose the lattice structure so that spatial information is maximized, as described in Section 3.5.

The final normative principle we require is that for computations such as path integration, there should be a simple vector manipulation that results in addition of the encoded variables. Again, vector binding provides this functionality with our coding strategy, because of the following property:

A standard model of grid cell circuits is the line attractor, in which states that represent a consistent location lie on a low-energy manifold [fiete2008grid]. When initialized from a noisy location pattern, the circuit dynamics will generate a denoised location representation. Rather than forming a line attractor model for the entire representational space (Eq. 2), we propose a modular network architecture, so that the compositional structure of a residue number representation can scale towards a large range with fewer memory resources (Section 3.2), in a manner robust to noise (Section 3.3).

A starting point for our attractor network model is the Hopfield network, which acts as an associative memory by storing memory patterns as fixed-point attractors. The Rademacher-Hopfield network [hopfield1982neural] is a dynamical system whose state is a vector $\mathbf{x}\in\{-1,+1\}^{D}$ that obeys the following dynamics:

with $\mathbf{X}$ as the matrix of memorized patterns (column vectors of $\mathbf{X}$). The fixed-point attractor dynamics can be generalized to complex memory patterns $\mathbf{z}\in\mathbb{C}^{D}$:

where $\sigma$ is a non-linearity normalizing the amplitude of each complex-valued component to one [noest1987phasor], and $\mathbf{Z}$ the corresponding matrix of memorized patterns. The model can also be discretized, such that each component is often quantized to a $r$-state phasor [noest1988discrete]. The Rademacher-Hopfield model is the special case where $r=2$ and the phasors happen to be real-valued.

An $r$-state phasor network of the form of Eq. 5 is well-suited to serve as an attractor network for each of the residue vectors in an RNS representation of position, with $r=m_{i}$ for modulus $i$, and the matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ (which we shall denote $\mathbf{G}_{i}$) storing the $\mathbf{g}_{i}(a_{i})$ for $a_{i}\in\{0,..,m_{i}-1\}$. However, we desire a method for representing the whole coding range $M:=\prod_{i}^{K}m_{i}$ without storing all $M$ patterns in one large associative memory. For this purpose we show that a resonator network, a recently proposed recurrent network for unbinding conjunctive codes [frady2020resonator, kent2020resonator], lets us represent this range by storing only $n:=\sum_{i}^{K}m_{i}\ll M$ patterns. Given a vector encoding of position, $\mathbf{p}(x)$, as formulated in Eq. (2), a resonator network will factorize it into its constituent RNS components by iteratively updating each residue vector estimate, $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{i}$, similar to the attractor dynamics of Eq. (5) but in a way that it is also consistent with $\mathbf{p}(x)$ given all other residue estimates $\hat{\mathbf{g}}_{j\neq i}$:

Let us now assume that the input $\mathbf{p}(x_{t})$ encodes a spatial position $x_{t}$ using Eq. (2). Given a velocity input $\mathbf{q}_{i}(v_{t})$, estimated from self-motion input, path integration is performed by first running attractor dynamics, then updating attractor states by velocity.

After velocity updates, one can update the input state $\mathbf{p}(x_{t})$ with the conjunctive representation of the current factor estimates:

Further explanation and detail is provided in Appendix B.3.

Although it is not obvious how the components of our normative model should map to the anatomical architecture of HF, we make one proposal as shown in Figure 1. The memory networks for residue representations $\mathbf{\hat{g}}_{i}$ correspond to grid modules in MEC. Similar to the grid modules, a module for context can be added to the architecture, such as a tag for the identity of a specific environment, with the recurrent synapses $\mathbf{C}$ storing tags of different environments.

The context neurons could correspond to the non-grid entorhinal cells, which can contain local, non-spatial information about the environment [latuske2018hippocampal]. The vector $\mathbf{p}(x_{t})$ can be linked to place cells in hippocampus. Internal HC circuitry can either buffer the input as in Eq. (6) or allow it to be updated dynamically according to the MEC input (Section 4.1). The mutual interactions between HC and MEC grid modules require projections between these structures. The binding operations that these interactions involve according to Eq. (6) are hypothesized to be implemented by nonlinear interactions between dendritic inputs in HC and MEC neurons.

The model also assumes the ability for sensory cues to provide the initialization signal of the cognitive map, represented by $\mathbf{s}$ in Figure 1. For completeness, we make the basic assumption that heteroassociative memories are formed by the brain that link sensory cues to the place cell representations $\mathbf{p}$ (Section 4.2). This process would require the system to generate a new context vector $\mathbf{c}$ and initialize the cognitive map to a default location in order to learn about new environments. We show that through even a simple heteroassociative mechanism, our modular attractor network can robustly retrieve sensory memories and even protect its compositional structure.

The compositional RNS vector representation Eq. (2) can encode a coding range of $M$ values using a total of $n$ component patterns for representing the residue of individual modules. The scaling of the coding range is exponential in the number of moduli, $K$, since if each module has $\mathcal{O}(m)$ patterns, and the co-prime condition is satisfied, the scaling of the coding range is $\mathcal{O}(m^{K})$. This recovers the expressivity argued by [fiete2008grid, mathis2012resolution].

More generally, it is also exponential in the number of component patterns, $n$. The optimal coding range is given by the best partition of $n$ into a set of positive $\{m_{i}\}$. This optimization is identical to that of finding the maximum order of an element in the group of permutations $S_{n}$, because the maximum order can be found by finding the longest cycle. The scaling of this value in $n$ is characterized by Landau’s function $f(n)$, which is known to converge to $\text{exp}(\sqrt{n\ \text{ln}\ n})$ as $n\to\infty$ [landau1903maximalordnung]. Figure 2A illustrates how Landau’s function is the upper bound to what is achievable for any fixed number of moduli ($K$).

Though other kinds of representations can achieve an exponential coding range, the advantage of the compositional encoding of Eq. (2) comes from the fact that the binding operation implements carry-free vector addition (our fourth principle). This enables updates of the encoded value without requiring further transformations such as decoding, facilitating tasks such as path integration (Section 4.1, Appendix C.3). Binary representations, by contrast, have exponential coding range but require carry-over operations to implement.

The exponential scaling of the coding range of the RNS representation is a prerequisite to obtain a large coding range with the attractor network that has to perform computations on this representation, such as input denoising, working memory, and path integration. To estimate the scaling of the coding range in the proposed attractor network (Eq. 6), we study the critical dimension for which the grid modules converge with high probability. Specifically, we empirically estimate the minimum dimension required to retrieve an arbitrary RNS representation with high probability, given a maximum number of iterations (Figure 2B). Remarkably, we find that the number of component patterns $n$ that can be stored is superlinear in the pattern dimension $D$; empirically $\mathcal{O}(D^{\alpha})$ for some $\alpha\geq 1$. For 2, 3, and 4 moduli, $\alpha\approx 2.05,1.45$ and $1.23$, respectively (Figure 2C).

These empirical scaling laws are consistent with a simple information-theoretic calculation (Appendix A.2). The minimal amount of bits to be stored for the entire RNS vector encoding scheme is of order $\mathcal{O}(M\ \text{log}\ M)$, and the number of synapses in the attractor network is $\mathcal{O}(D\sqrt[K]{M})$. If one makes the cautious assumption of a capacity per synapse of $\mathcal{O}(1)$, the leading order for the coding range $M$ is $\mathcal{O}(D^{\alpha})$, with $\alpha=\frac{K}{K-1}$.

Note that while the coding range increases with the number of moduli ($K$) for the RNS representation, the superlinear scaling coefficient $\alpha_{K}$ decreases with $K$ for the modular attractor network, reaching maximum superlinearity at the smallest value $K=2$. This reversal is caused by the fact that increasing $K$ decreases the number of synapses, i.e., the memory resource in the attractor network.

In addition, we evaluate the robustness of our attractor model to noise. Because the RNS representations are composed of phasors, which are circular variables, we sample noise from a von Mises distribution with two parameters: mean ($\mu=0$) and concentration pattern $\kappa$ (Figure 3A). Higher $\kappa$ values imply less noise; the distribution approximates a Gaussian with variance $1/\kappa$ for large $\kappa$.

We consider three cases: noisy input patterns, noise added to each time step, and noisy weights corruptions of patterns in $\mathbf{G}_{i}$ (Appendix B.2). The empirical accuracy of recall varies depending on the type of corruption applied (Figure 3A). We find that for a given dimension $D$ (in this case, $1024$), increasing noise decreases the maximum coding range that can be decoded with high accuracy (Figure 3B-D). For a fixed noise level, the high-accuracy coding range is largest for input noise, followed by update noise and codebook noise. It is perhaps not surprising that codebook noise has the worst coding range, given that noise added to every stored pattern compounds across the dynamics. Fortunately, the demonstrated robustness to input noise enables sensory patterns to be denoised via heteroassociation (Section 4.2).

In general, there is a sharp difference between point and line attractors. In our attractor model, the RNS representations of integer values are stored as discrete fixed points. Nevertheless, the attractor network also converges to states that represent non-integer values that are not explicitly stored. In other words, the network smoothly interpolates to points on a manifold of states that represent integer and non-integer values encoded by (2); Figure 4A provides a visualization, showing that the kernel induced by inner product operations retains graded similarity for sub-integer shifts. This kernel enables the modular attractor network to settle to fixed points that correspond to interpolations between integers, and for sub-integer positions to be decoded.

The resolution of decoding is fundamentally limited by the signal to noise ratio. Even so, we find that, up to a fixed noise level, the accuracy regimes of integer decoding and sub-integer decoding coincide. This property enables sub-integer shifts to be encoded within the states of the network, which, as we will show, results in stable, error-correcting path integration (Section 4.1). We quantify the gain in precision in terms of the bits of information that can on average be reconstructed from a vector (Figures  4D, Appendix B.2). Notably, even a moderate noise level of $\kappa=8$ is sufficient to achieve nearly the same information content as in the noiseless case.

In two-dimensional open field environments, grid cells have firing fields arranged in a hexagonal lattice [hafting2005microstructure]. Work in theoretical neuroscience shows the optimality of this lattice for 2D environments in terms of spatial information [wei2015principle, mathis2015probable, anselmi2020computational]. However, the presence of hexagonal firing fields raises a puzzle for residue number systems. Although a crucial property of a RNS is the carry-free property, most implementations of RNS will not perform carry-free updates within a module in non-Cartesian coordinate systems. This generally occurs because the updates of different coordinates must interact due to non-orthogonality.

We resolve this issue by showing how to implement a version of vector binding of multiple coordinates in a triangular ‘Mercedes-Benz’ frame that enables carry-free hexagonal coding. Furthermore, we provide a combinatoric argument for the optimality of triangular frames for $\mathbb{R}^{2}.$ (A frame is a spanning set for a vector space in which the basis vectors need not be linearly independent.) Our argument relies on the combinatorics of residue numbers, and so for the first time gives an explanation of why the coexistence of RNS and hexagonal codes is optimal.

To form a hexagonal tiling of 2D position requires two steps: first, projection into a $3$-coordinate frame, and second, choosing phases such that simultaneous, equal movements along all three frames cancel out (Appendix A.3). The resulting Voronoi tessellation for different states is pictured in Figure 5A. This encoding enables higher spatial resolution in terms of the number of discrete states: $3m^{2}-3m+1$ for triangular frames, versus $m^{2}$ for Cartesian frames. This increased expressivity results in a higher entropy) code for space (Figure 5B). It also results in both a periodic hexagonal kernel and the individual grid response fields being arranged in a hexagonal lattice (Figure 6C).

Prior models achieved hexagonal lattices either by circularly symmetric receptive fields (e.g., [fuhs2006spin, burak2009accurate]) arranged on a periodic rectangular sheet or by distorting a square lattice into an oblique one (e.g., [chandra2023high, mosheiff2019velocity]). Importantly, oblique lattices have the combinatorial complexity as the square grid and, unlike the construction described above, they do not achieve the same level of spatial resolution (Figure 5B).

Given the ability of the attractor model to update its representation of position from velocity inputs, along with its ability to represent continuous space, we evaluate its ability to perform path integration in the presence of noise. We simulate trajectories based on a statistical model for generating plausible rodent movements in an arena [raudies2012modeling, banino2018vector], and we update grid cell and place cell state vectors according to Equations 7 and 8, respectively.

To evaluate the robustness of the model to error (Appendix B.3), we consider both sources of extrinsic noise (e.g., mis-representations of velocity information), and intrinsic noise (e.g., due to noise in weight updates). The robustness of our model to intrinsic noise is tested by comparing our results to the estimated trajectories obtained without the correction by the MEC modules (Figure 6 A and B). We find that our model strongly limits noise accumulation along the trajectory and allows highly accurate integration for a longer period of time (Figure 6A). Consistent with our previous experiments on noise robustness (Figure 3), we find strong robustness to intrinsic noise, and that extrinsic noise results in progressive drift of estimated position.

We visualize the response fields in different modules and find hexagonal lattices with a module dependent scaling (Figure 6C, Appendix 4.1). In addition, we show that tethering to external cues (e.g., visual inputs), can significantly increase the accuracy of the attractor network. To study this, we associate visual cues to corresponding patches see Section 4.2) and observe that integration of information from sensory visual inputs succeeds in correcting drift due to extrinsic noise (Figure 6D).

Finally, we describe a simple extension to our model, in which sensory patterns are fed from the lateral entorhinal cortex (LEC) to update the hippocampal state. This is consistent with theories of memory suggesting that LEC provides the content of experiences to hippocampus [manns2006evolution], as well as neuroanatomical evidence [knierim2014functional]. Although the structure of the representations of those sensory patterns is unknown, it is theorized that HF is critical to sensory pattern completion [teyler1986hippocampal].

Consistent with this function, recent work [sharma2022content, chandra2023high] has proposed that a heteroassociative scaffold connects sensory patterns to hippocampal activity, allowing robust denoising of sensory states. Though the main focus of our normative model is not sensory denoising, we show that a simple extension to our model (Appendix B.4) robustly retrieves noisy pattern even under high levels of corruption (Figures  7A and B). In Appendix C.3, we also discuss how this capacity for generalization can serve as a model for sequence retrieval, showing some preliminary experiments.

In addition to robust denoising of single patterns, our model is also well-equipped to deal with compositions of sensory patterns. Two situations are worth emphasizing: first, we can often unmix multiple sensory states corresponding to a sum of patterns, because the compositional structure of binding between grid modules “protects” the items in summation (Figure 7C). This differentiates our model from other heteroassociative memories, in which sums of patterns would have multiple equally valid yet incompatible decodings. Second, the context vector modules allow preservation of different sensory information for different environments (Figure S3).