Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123333›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Flexible cue anchoring strategies enable stable head direction coding in both sighted and blind animals.

Kadjita Asumbisa, Adrien Peyrache, Stuart Trenholm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ecological Visual Processing in the Mouse.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Angular Head Velocity Cells within Brainstem Nuclei Projecting to the Head Direction Circuit.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Attractor and integrator networks in the brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  17. 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.

Kadjita AsumbisaMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4110-7555
Adrien PeyracheMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9708-309X
Stuart TrenholmMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada. stuart.trenholm@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-5792-0957

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vision plays a crucial role in instructing the brain's spatial navigation systems. However, little is known about how vision loss affects the neuronal encoding of spatial information. Here, recording from head direction (HD) cells in the anterior dorsal nucleus of the thalamus in mice, we find stable and robust HD tuning in rd1 mice, a model of photoreceptor degeneration, that go blind by approximately one month of age. In contrast, placing sighted animals in darkness significantly impairs HD cell tuning. We find that blind mice use olfactory cues to maintain stable HD tuning and that prior visual experience leads to refined HD cell tuning in blind rd1 adult mice compared to congenitally blind animals. Finally, in the absence of both visual and olfactory cues, the HD attractor network remains intact but the preferred firing direction of HD cells drifts over time. These findings demonstrate flexibility in how the brain uses diverse sensory information to generate a stable directional representation of space.

Indexed as

CuesSpatial NavigationAnimalsHead MovementsMiceNeuronsOrientation

Identifiers

PMID36123333
PMCPMC9485117

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.