ArticleScientific reports2021
Differential prioritization of intramaze cue and boundary information during spatial navigation across the human lifespan.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual Morris Water Task: Procedures and Protocols for the Assessment of Spatial Navigation and Memory.Current protocols · 2026Article
- Heuristic pruning of decision trees at low probabilities and probability discounting in sequential planning in young and older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Environment geometry alters subiculum boundary vector cell receptive fields in adulthood and early development.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Levodopa suppresses grid-like activity and impairs spatial learning in novel environments in healthy young adults.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial learning can be based on intramaze cues and environmental boundaries. These processes are predominantly subserved by striatal- and hippocampal-dependent circuitries, respectively. Maturation and aging processes in these brain regions may affect lifespan differences in their contributions to spatial learning. We independently manipulated an intramaze cue or the environment's boundary in a navigation task in 27 younger children (6-8 years), 30 older children (10-13 years), 29 adolescents (15-17 years), 29 younger adults (20-35 years) and 26 older adults (65-80 years) to investigate lifespan age differences in the relative prioritization of either information. Whereas learning based on an intramaze cue showed earlier maturation during the progression from younger to later childhood and remained relatively stable across adulthood, maturation of boundary-based learning was more protracted towards peri-adolescence and showed strong aging-related decline. Furthermore, individual differences in prioritizing intramaze cue- over computationally more demanding boundary-based learning was positively associated with cognitive processing fluctuations and this association was partially mediated by spatial working memory capacity during adult, but not during child development. This evidence reveals different age gradients of two modes of spatial learning across the lifespan, which seem further influenced by individual differences in cognitive processing fluctuations and working memory, particularly during aging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.