Neural Network Configuration and Efficiency Underlies Individual Differences in Spatial Orientation Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial orientation is a complex cognitive process requiring the integration of information processed in a distributed system of brain regions. Current models on the neural basis of spatial orientation are based primarily on the functional role of single brain regions, with limited understanding of how interaction among these brain regions relates to behavior. In this study, we investigated two sources of variability in the neural networks that support spatial orientation--network configuration and efficiency--and assessed whether variability in these topological properties relates to individual differences in orientation accuracy. Participants with higher accuracy were shown to express greater activity in the right supramarginal gyrus, the right precentral cortex, and the left hippocampus, over and above a core network engaged by the whole group. Additionally, high-performing individuals had increased levels of global efficiency within a resting-state network composed of brain regions engaged during orientation and increased levels of node centrality in the right supramarginal gyrus, the right primary motor cortex, and the left hippocampus. These results indicate that individual differences in the configuration of task-related networks and their efficiency measured at rest relate to the ability to spatially orient. Our findings advance systems neuroscience models of orientation and navigation by providing insight into the role of functional integration in shaping orientation behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".