Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30082418›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2018

Differentiable Processing of Objects, Associations, and Scenes within the Hippocampus.

Marshall A Dalton, Peter Zeidman, Cornelia McCormick, Eleanor A Maguire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Specialization of the human hippocampal long axis revisited.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. New CRISPR/Cas9-based Fgfr2Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The hearing hippocampus.Progress in neurobiology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Marshall A DaltonWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom.
Peter ZeidmanWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom.
Cornelia McCormickWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom.
Eleanor A MaguireWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom e.maguire@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9470-6324

Funding

Wellcome Trust 210567/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hippocampus is known to be important for a range of cognitive functions, including episodic memory, spatial navigation, and thinking about the future. However, researchers have found it difficult to agree on the exact nature of this brain structure's contribution to cognition. Some theories emphasize the role of the hippocampus in associative processes. Another theory proposes that scene construction is its primary role. To directly compare these accounts of hippocampal function in human males and females, we devised a novel mental imagery paradigm where different tasks were closely matched for associative processing and mental construction, but either did or did not evoke scene representations, and we combined this with high-resolution functional MRI. The results were striking in showing that different parts of the hippocampus, along with distinct cortical regions, were recruited for scene construction or nonscene-evoking associative processing. The contrasting patterns of neural engagement could not be accounted for by differences in eye movements, mnemonic processing, or the phenomenology of mental imagery. These results inform conceptual debates in the field by showing that the hippocampus does not seem to favor one type of process over another; it is not a story of exclusivity. Rather, there may be different circuits within the hippocampus, each associated with different cortical inputs, which become engaged depending on the nature of the stimuli and the task at hand. Overall, our findings emphasize the importance of considering the hippocampus as a heterogeneous structure, and that a focus on characterizing how specific portions of the hippocampus interact with other brain regions may promote a better understanding of its role in cognition.

Indexed as

Brain MappingEye MovementsFemaleFunctional NeuroimagingHippocampusHumansImaginationMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNerve NetNeuropsychological TestsSex CharacteristicsassociationsfMRIhippocampusobjectsscenesspace

Identifiers

PMID30082418
PMCPMC6146500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.