Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32515352›Full record

ArticleeLife2020

Hippocampal remapping as hidden state inference.

Honi Sanders, Matthew A Wilson, Samuel J Gershman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing 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

69 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. The hippocampus as a generative model.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Orbitofrontal-Hippocampal State Coding Dynamics during Reversal Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 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

3 authors.

Honi SandersCenter for Brains Minds and Machines, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9018-2001
Matthew A WilsonCenter for Brains Minds and Machines, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States.
Samuel J GershmanCenter for Brains Minds and Machines, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6546-3298

Funding

NSF STC award CCF-1231216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cells in the hippocampus tuned to spatial location (place cells) typically change their tuning when an animal changes context, a phenomenon known as remapping. A fundamental challenge to understanding remapping is the fact that what counts as a ''context change'' has never been precisely defined. Furthermore, different remapping phenomena have been classified on the basis of how much the tuning changes after different types and degrees of context change, but the relationship between these variables is not clear. We address these ambiguities by formalizing remapping in terms of hidden state inference. According to this view, remapping does not directly reflect objective, observable properties of the environment, but rather subjective beliefs about the hidden state of the environment. We show how the hidden state framework can resolve a number of puzzles about the nature of remapping.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAnimalsCuesHippocampusMaze LearningOrientation, SpatialPlace CellsRatsbayesian inferencecontexthidden statehippocampuslearningneurosciencenoneplace cell

Identifiers

PMID32515352
PMCPMC7282808

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.