Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27479741›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of physiology2016

Optimal cue combination and landmark-stability learning in the head direction system.

Kate J Jeffery, Hector J I Page, Simon M Stringer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Allocentric flocking.Nature communications · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Disentangling reference frames in the neural compass.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Attractor-like Dynamics in the Subicular Complex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Testing the Efficacy of Single-Cell Stimulation in Biasing Presubicular Head Direction Activity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  14. Retrosplenial cortex and its role in spatial cognition.Brain and neuroscience advances · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Neural mechanisms for spatial computation.The Journal of physiology · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kate J JefferyInstitute of Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9495-0378
Hector J I PageInstitute of Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AP, UK.
Simon M StringerOxford Centre for Theoretical Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J009792/1Medical Research Council G1100669Wellcome Trust WT103896AIA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maintaining a sense of direction requires combining information from static environmental landmarks with dynamic information about self-motion. This is accomplished by the head direction system, whose neurons - head direction cells - encode specific head directions. When the brain integrates information in sensory domains, this process is almost always 'optimal' - that is, inputs are weighted according to their reliability. Evidence suggests cue combination by head direction cells may also be optimal. The simplicity of the head direction signal, together with the detailed knowledge we have about the anatomy and physiology of the underlying circuit, therefore makes this system a tractable model with which to discover how optimal cue combination occurs at a neural level. In the head direction system, cue interactions are thought to occur on an attractor network of interacting head direction neurons, but attractor dynamics predict a winner-take-all decision between cues, rather than optimal combination. However, optimal cue combination in an attractor could be achieved via plasticity in the feedforward connections from external sensory cues (i.e. the landmarks) onto the ring attractor. Short-term plasticity would allow rapid re-weighting that adjusts the final state of the network in accordance with cue reliability (reflected in the connection strengths), while longer term plasticity would allow long-term learning about this reliability. Although these principles were derived to model the head direction system, they could potentially serve to explain optimal cue combination in other sensory systems more generally.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCuesHeadHumansLearningModels, NeurologicalMotion PerceptionNeuronsSensationSpace Perceptionattractor networkscue combinationsensory integration

Identifiers

PMID27479741
PMCPMC5108898

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.