We'll be missing you too, David!

6\. Really excited about these results and about how this approach can be used in the future! Lots more to do, but I think these comparisons of rep geometry across assays can really help us add more nuance to our understanding of similarities and differences between species (and other comparisons).

5\. Does the difference between these assays depend on the human visual advantage? In another cohort of participants, we demonstrate that masking the visual world with dense fog during retrieval does NOT impact representational geometry or cross-species resemblance. So it’s not just about vision!

4\. Does this depend on the scale of the environment? We repeated our experiment in a room double the size (5x5 vs. 10x10 m). Here, the local impact of deformations scaled up, in turn preserving the rep geometry and cross-species resemblance. So it's not just about scale (at least for the humans)!

3\. The geometry of human memory is similar but not the same as mouse CA1. Instead, it resembles a change-resistant version. CA1 subpopulations with higher firing rates, stability, and spatial specificity look more human-like. Low precision (but not low accuracy) memories look more mouse-like.

2\. We then compare the geometry of these reps to those of mouse CA1 recorded during analogous deformations, leveraging a dataset that @markbrandonlab.bsky.social‬, @jquinnlee.bsky.social‬, and I published recently. (Check out that work if you haven’t already! www.cell.com/neuron/fullt....

1\. We use immersive VR to characterize the impact of a diverse deformations on human spatial memory. Across 3 experiments of 100+ participants each, we find that deformations induce compounding local distortions in memory.

It’s real rn!

Can’t wait Andy! Definitely stoked to catch up!