Neuroanatomic Correlates of Distance and Direction Processing During Cognitive Map Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Navigating toward a goal and mentally comparing distances and directions to landmarks are processes requiring reading information off the memorized representation of the environment, that is, the cognitive map. Brain structures in the medial temporal lobe, in particular, are known to be involved in the learning, storage, and retrieval of cognitive map information, which is generally assumed to be in allocentric form, whereby pure spatial relations (i.e., distance and direction) connect locations with each other. The authors recorded functional magnetic resonance imaging activity, while participants were submitted to a variant of a neuropsychological test (the Cognitive Map Reading Test; CMRT) originally developed to evaluate the performance of brain-lesioned patients and in which participants have to compare distances and directions in their mental map of their hometown. Our main results indicated posterior parahippocampal, but not hippocampal, activity, consistent with a task involving spatial memory of places learned a long time ago; left parietal and left frontal activity, consistent with the distributed processing of navigational representations; and, unexpectedly, cerebellar activity, possibly related to the role of the cerebellum in the processing of (here, imaginary) self-motion cues. In addition, direction, but not distance, comparisons elicited significant activation in the posterior parahippocampal gyrus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".