Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438758›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025

Navigating space and the developing mind.

Adrienn Réka Németh, Sandra Stojić, Zoltan Nadasdy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Adrienn Réka NémethDoctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
Sandra StojićDoctoral School of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.
Zoltan NadasdyInstitute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we review the extensive and complex fabric of literature concerning the ontogenesis of spatial representations from earliest childhood to the elderly, including normal and abnormal aging (dementia and Alzheimer's disease). We also revisit fundamental concepts of the neuronal representations of space, egocentric vs. allocentric reference frames, and path integration. We highlight a thread of contradictions in spatial cognition from infant cognition to the first breakthrough at around the age of four. The contradictions reemerge in the literature on age-related decline in spatial cognition. We argue that these contradictions derive from the incorrect assumption that path integration is exclusively associated with allocentric frames of references, hence, signatures of path integration are often taken as evidence for allocentric perspective-taking. We posit that several contradictions in the literature can be resolved by acknowledging that path integration is agnostic to the type of reference frame and can be implemented in both egocentric and allocentric frames of reference. By freeing the frames of reference from path integration, we arrive at a developmental trajectory consistent across cognitive development studies, enabling us to ask questions that may dissolve the obscurity of this topic. The new model also sheds light on the very early stage of spatial cognition.

Indexed as

agingallocentricdevelopmentegocentricpath integrationspatial navigationtheory of mind

Identifiers

PMID40438758
PMCPMC12116597

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.