ArticleeNeuro2024
Repetition Suppression Reveals Cue-Specific Spatial Representations for Landmarks and Self-Motion Cues in the Human Retrosplenial Cortex.
Article in eNeuro, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Path Integration in Alzheimer's Disease: Orientation, Movement, and Theta Rhythmicity.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Graded encoding of spatial novelty scales in the human brain.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Theta Activity Supports Landmark-Based Correction of Naturalistic Human Path Integration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
- Representational similarity analysis reveals cue-independent spatial representations for landmarks and self-motion cues in human retrosplenial cortex.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The role of the hippocampus and retrosplenial cortex in spatial memory: a double blind anodal transcranial direct current stimulation study.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficient use of various spatial cues within a setting is crucial for successful navigation. Two fundamental forms of spatial navigation, landmark-based and self-motion-based, engage distinct cognitive mechanisms. The question of whether these modes invoke shared or separate spatial representations in the brain remains unresolved. While nonhuman animal studies have yielded inconsistent results, human investigation is limited. In our previous work (Chen et al., 2019), we introduced a novel spatial navigation paradigm utilizing ultra-high field fMRI to explore neural coding of positional information. We found that different entorhinal subregions in the right hemisphere encode positional information for landmarks and self-motion cues. The present study tested the generalizability of our previous finding with a modified navigation paradigm. Although we did not replicate our previous finding in the entorhinal cortex, we identified adaptation-based allocentric positional codes for both cue types in the retrosplenial cortex (RSC), which were not confounded by the path to the spatial location. Crucially, the multi-voxel patterns of these spatial codes differed between the cue types, suggesting cue-specific positional coding. The parahippocampal cortex exhibited positional coding for self-motion cues, which was not dissociable from path length. Finally, the brain regions involved in successful navigation differed from our previous study, indicating overall distinct neural mechanisms recruited in our two studies. Taken together, the current findings demonstrate cue-specific allocentric positional coding in the human RSC in the same navigation task for the first time and that spatial representations in the brain are contingent on specific experimental conditions.
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.