ReviewFrontiers in cognition2026
Hippocampal relational memory and spatial reconstruction: where are we at and where are we bound?
Review in Frontiers in cognition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Memory is increasingly understood as a reconstructive process, yet many memory paradigms assess only the outcome of retrieval rather than the structure of reconstruction itself. Spatial reconstruction tasks (SRTs) provide a powerful approach for examining reconstructive memory because they require participants to recreate studied object-location configurations and allow researchers to quantify multiple sources of spatial error. This review synthesizes theoretical and empirical work on SRTs as measures of hippocampally-mediated relational memory. Lesion studies established that hippocampal damage impairs spatial reconstruction as well as demonstrating that SRTs are sensitive to particular underlying mechanisms. SRTs have been utilized across amnesia, traumatic brain injury, aging, and development, with accumulating evidence suggesting that they index the role of the hippocampus in binding specific objects to specific locations. However, the literature is limited by substantial variability in task design, stimulus type, and analytic metrics. We review commonly used measures and differing interpretations across studies using SRTs. Finally, we outline recommendations for standardizing SRT design and analysis, discuss key limitations and methodological constraints that should be addressed, and highlight future directions involving eye-tracking, neuroimaging, clinical populations, and extensions beyond spatial memory. Overall, we argue that SRTs offer a sensitive framework for understanding how relational memories are encoded, bound, and reconstructed, and have great utility for future research avenues.
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.