ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Representational similarity analysis reveals cue-independent spatial representations for landmarks and self-motion cues in human retrosplenial cortex.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ambulation improves memory for rotated scenes.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Theta Activity Supports Landmark-Based Correction of Naturalistic Human Path Integration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is a fundamental question in the spatial navigation literature how different spatial cues are unified to form a coherent spatial map of the space. Landmarks and self-motion cues are two major spatial cue types, which recruit relatively independent cognitive processes that dynamically interact with each other during navigation. In our previous studies, we developed two novel memory-dependent paradigms to contrast visual landmarks and visual self-motion cues in the desktop virtual reality environment. Participants visited the four test locations arranged evenly along a linear track in predetermined sequences. While at each test location, they performed a spatial judgment relying on memory. Using ultra-high field fMRI at 7 Tesla, we found that the human entorhinal cortex (EC) and retrosplenial cortex (RSC) exhibited cue-specific location-based spatial representations in the form of fMRI adaptation (fMRIa), meaning that the closer the two successively visited locations were to each other, the greater the suppression in the brain activation. In the current study, we re-analyzed the same fMRI datasets from our previous studies by performing the representational similarity analysis (RSA), an approach complementary to the fMRIa analysis in assessing neural representations. RSA's rationale is that the closer two locations are to each other in the space, the more similar multi-voxel patterns of brain activation they should elicit. The results showed that RSC contained RSA-based neural representations of spatial locations for both landmarks and self-motion cues, which were overall driven by subjective response (participant's self-reported location) instead of objective location (participant's actual location). These representations were generalizable between the two cue types in terms of response, indicating cue-independent spatial representations. Combined with our previous finding of cue-specific fMRIa-based spatial representations in RSC, our study demonstrates the coexistence of cue-specific and cue-independent spatial representations in RSC. Our findings suggest that RSC plays a crucial role in unifying various spatial sensory inputs into coherent spatial representations, supporting memory-oriented navigation behavior.
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.