Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28858613›Full record

ReviewNeuron2017

The Aging Navigational System.

Adam W Lester, Scott D Moffat, Jan M Wiener, Carol A Barnes, Thomas Wolbers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuron, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 189 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
189citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

189 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

129 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Adam W LesterEvelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Scott D MoffatSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 USA.
Jan M WienerDepartment of Psychology, Ageing and Dementia Institute, Bournemouth University, Poole BH12 5BB, UK.
Carol A BarnesEvelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Division of Neural Systems, Memory and Aging, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Departments of Psychology, Neurology, and Neuroscience, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Thomas WolbersGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Aging and Cognition Research Group, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; Center for Behavioral Brain Sciences (CBBS), 39118 Magdeburg, Germany. Electronic address: thomas.wolbers@dzne.de.

Funding

NEUROBEHAVIORAL RELATIONS IN SENESCENT HIPPOCAMPUSR01AG003376 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER · PI BARNES, CAROL A. · 1985 to 2025
$16.4M
European Research Council 335090NIA NIH HHS R01 AG003376
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery of neuronal systems dedicated to computing spatial information, composed of functionally distinct cell types such as place and grid cells, combined with an extensive body of human-based behavioral and neuroimaging research has provided us with a detailed understanding of the brain's navigation circuit. In this review, we discuss emerging evidence from rodents, non-human primates, and humans that demonstrates how cognitive aging affects the navigational computations supported by these systems. Critically, we show 1) that navigational deficits cannot solely be explained by general deficits in learning and memory, 2) that there is no uniform decline across different navigational computations, and 3) that navigational deficits might be sensitive markers for impending pathological decline. Following an introduction to the mechanisms underlying spatial navigation and how they relate to general processes of learning and memory, the review discusses how aging affects the perception and integration of spatial information, the creation and storage of memory traces for spatial information, and the use of spatial information during navigational behavior. The closing section highlights the clinical potential of behavioral and neural markers of spatial navigation, with a particular emphasis on neurodegenerative disorders.

Indexed as

AgingAnimalsHumansLearningNeurodegenerative DiseasesSpatial MemorySpatial NavigationSpatial ProcessingagingAlzheimer’s diseasecognitive mapdementiaentorhinal cortexgrid cellshippocampusmemoryplace cellsspatial navigation

Identifiers

PMID28858613
PMCPMC5659315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.