Extended Data Fig. 7: Neuronal responses to physical interaction between animals during competitive bouts.

a, Graphic depicting an overtaking event where an animal (red, overtaking) overtakes another (yellow, overtaken) in the middle of running the trial. Right, overtaking animals were more likely to be higher ranking than the overtaken animals (n=4105 total overtaking events; *Z=-3.95, p=7.75x10-5; Signed-rank). b, Plot demonstrating the likelihood of being the overtaking animal based on absolute rank and position within the arena (n=4105 total overtaking events; Top, close to entrance point; Bottom, close to the staging area). c, Cumulative distribution function (CDF) demonstrating that overtaking events for higher ranked animals were more likely to occur farther away from the entrance point (closer to the staging area). N=4105 total overtaking events. d, The animals being overtaken were more likely to pause after an overtaking even when they were lower in rank than their competitors (*r_s=0.14, p=1.21x10^-10; Spearman correlation). Dots represent one overtaking/pausing bout (n=2074 total). Based on GLMs that further took into account the animals’ previous trial performance (Methods), there was a significant effect on the probability of a pausing event after an overtaking event based on rank difference (t₃₁₄₅=-2.77, p=0.0088), velocity difference (t₃₁₄₅=-11.02, p=2.99x10^-28) proximity between animals (t₃₁₄₅=-5.68, p=1.32x10^-8), race position (t₃₁₄₅=-6.53, p=2.99x10^-13) and distance from reward (t₃₁₄₅=9.91, p=3.78x10^-23). e, The mid-ranked (recorded) animals were more likely to be ranked higher than another when overtaking them and more likely to be ranked lower when being overtaken (n=1221 overtaking events involving mid-ranked mouse; *Z=-4.08, p=4.43x10^-5; Signed-rank). f, Left, PETH and raster plots illustrating two representative cells that displayed a difference in their activities based on whether the recorded animal were overtaking another animal or being overtaken. Right, Most neurons that responded to differences in the animals’ competitive success across groupings displayed little response to physical factors such as proximity to the other animals (χ²₍₁₎=232.3, p=1.88x10^-52; Chi-Square test) or overtaking events at which time the recorded animals overtook another animal in their group (χ²₍₁₎=214, p=1.82x10^-48; Chi-Square test). g, Graphic depicting pausing behaviour, where an animal (yellow) pauses in the middle of running a trial. h, Lower ranked animals were more likely to pause while foraging with higher ranked animals no matter the spatial location. i, There was no difference in pause durations based on absolute rank (χ²_(6,7129)=2.04, p=0.067; Kruskal-Wallis). j, Left, mid-rank (recorded) animals paused more often when they were lower in rank than their competitors (*r_s=0.17, p=0.007) but displayed no difference in pausing behaviour when running with totems compared to group trials (Z=-2.28 p=0.26; Signed-rank). Right, The total duration of pauses by the mid-ranked animals were not influence by relative rank (r_s=-0.02, p=0.85) but was significantly shorter when running with totem trials compared to group trials (Z=-4.76 p=1.9x10^-6; Signed-rank). Dots represent session averages (n=63). k, Graphic depicting physical race positions based on the animals’ closeness to the reward zone in relation to others on trials that had an overtaking event. Right, the dominant animals were more likely to be in a higher race position. l, Left, Bar plots of two representative neurons that were tuned to the animals’ instantaneous position during a trial. Error bars denote mean ± s.e.m. Right, Most neurons that responded to differences in competitive success across groupings displayed little response to the animal’s physical position in relation to others (χ²₍₁₎=205, p=1.66x10^-46; Chi-Square test). m, Graphic depicting events in which the animals are crowded outside the entrance point, where the target animal (yellow) is in proximity with either two (Top) or one (Bottom) other competitor. n, Animals that were lower in relative rank were more likely to crowd with one or two others compared to animals that were higher in relative rank. N=3819 total crowding events. o, Heat map demonstrating that, during crowding events, animals of lower relative rank were more commonly partnered with other animals of lower relative rank. Error bars and shaded areas denote mean±95%CI.

Source data