ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2025
The role of the hippocampus and retrosplenial cortex in spatial memory: a double blind anodal transcranial direct current stimulation study.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Spatial memory supports orientation and navigation by integrating multiple spatial reference frames. Neuroimaging and lesion studies implicate the hippocampus (HIP) and retrosplenial cortex (RSC), but causal evidence from non-invasive brain stimulation is limited. Methods: Eighteen participants performed a spatial localization task in a virtual room under three stimulation conditions: anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the left RSC, anodal tDCS over the left HIP, and sham. Task conditions varied in reference frame (viewer-, object-, room-centered) and perspective shift (0°, 45°, 135°). Accuracy was analyzed with non-parametric statistics. Results: Performance declined with increasing viewpoint rotation, especially in room-centered trials. RSC stimulation selectively reduced accuracy in room-centered trials with large perspective shifts (135°), whereas HIP stimulation did not significantly modulate performance. Discussion: Findings provide causal evidence for the involvement of the RSC in viewpoint-invariant spatial updating, supporting its role in integrating stable environmental cues. HIP stimulation yielded no reliable behavioral effects, suggesting functional specificity of the RSC and highlighting the challenges of modulating deep cortical structures with tDCS.
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.