ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Evaluating place cell detection methods in Rats and Humans: Implications for cross-species spatial coding.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Place cells, first identified in the rat hippocampus as neurons that fire selectively at specific locations, are central to investigations of the neural underpinnings of spatial navigation. Recent spatial studies in human patients with drug-resistant epilepsy have made identifying and characterizing place cells across species increasingly important for understanding the extent to which decades of rodent research generalize to humans and for uncovering fundamental principles of spatial cognition. One challenge, however, is that detection methods differ: rodent studies often rely on spatial information (SI) in conjunction with place field stability measures, whereas human studies employ analysis of variance (ANOVA) based approaches. These methodological differences may affect the identified place cell populations, which complicates how their properties are interpreted and cross-species comparisons. To address this, we systematically applied multiple detection pipelines to human and rat datasets, supported by simulations that vary place-field properties. Our analyses and simulations demonstrate that spatial information and ANOVA-based approaches are responsive to distinct place field properties: spatial information primarily reflects the contrast between peak and average firing rates, while ANOVA emphasizes consistency across trials. Across species, rodent place cells revealed a broad spectrum of spatial tuning, including strongly tuned neurons with high spatial information and high ANOVA values. In contrast, human place cells lacked this strongly tuned population and exhibited a narrower distribution of tuning scores, concentrated at the lower end of both spatial tuning metrics. Despite these differences, both species had an overlapping population of neurons with weaker yet consistent spatial tuning, which may support important functional roles such as generalization and mixed selectivity. Addressing these analytical differences allows for more direct comparisons between species, though differences in spatial tuning may still relate to variations in experimental paradigms that warrant further investigation. Together, our study provides a roadmap showing how spatial tuning metrics shape place cell detection and interpretation.
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.