ArticleNeuroImage2026
Differential representations of spatial environments in mPFC and hippocampus underpinning flexible navigation.
Article in NeuroImage, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies on spatial schemas have primarily derived from rodent literature examining the development of task representations in the animal's brain. However, traditional models of schema in humans have largely (although not exclusively) been non-navigation-based, with theoretical frameworks not always aligning with data from rodent studies using navigational contexts. Both literatures support that schemas accelerate learning of novel associations when prior associations already exist. However, theories vary in how adversarial hippocampus and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) functions are for schema memory (despite intimate anatomical connections). Critically, cognitive maps, as a simple form of schema, are used for planning and decision-making, not just learning. Extant literature suggests there may be different stages of goal-directed navigation that are more demanding on hippocampal mechanisms than others (since planning and online decisions may differentially tax inference from what has previously been learned about this and "similar" environments) and demands may differ further depending on how closely-aligned routes are with prior navigational experiences in the environment. Such alignment may also influence how dissociable hippocampal mechanisms are from mPFC correlates of performance. Using desktop virtual reality, fMRI, and targeted region of interest analyses, findings from 19 healthy young adults demonstrate 1) functional differences between anterior and posterior subdivisions of vmPFC (which have been previously tied to schema processing and navigation), with significant differences between these subregions in how they process navigation stages and explain individual differences in navigation behavior. 2) Representational analyses demonstrate broad agreement in coding between the hippocampus and posterior mPFC, while anterior mPFC may support navigation through more generalized levels of processing.
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.