MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retrosplenial and hippocampal brain regions in human navigation: complementary functional contributions to the formation and use of cognitive maps

2007· article· en· W2129440177 on OpenAlexafffund
Giuseppe Iaria, Jen‐Kai Chen, Cecilia Guariglia, Alain Ptito, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRetrosplenial cortexHippocampal formationHippocampusNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitive mapPsychologyCognitionSpatial cognitionNeuropsychologyHuman brainBrain mappingCortex (anatomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to orientate within familiar environments relies on the formation and use of a mental representation of the environment, namely a cognitive map. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies suggest that the retrosplenial and hippocampal brain regions are involved in topographical orientation. We combined functional magnetic resonance imaging with a virtual-reality paradigm to investigate the functional interaction of the hippocampus and retrosplenial cortex during the formation and utilization of cognitive maps by human subjects. We found that the anterior hippocampus is involved during the formation of the cognitive map, while the posterior hippocampus is involved when using it. In conjunction with the hippocampus, the retrosplenial cortex was active during both the formation and the use of the cognitive map. In accordance with earlier studies in non-human animals, these findings suggest that, while navigating within the environment, the retrosplenial cortex complements the hippocampal contribution to topographical orientation by updating the individual's location as the frame of reference changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations267
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207