MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132964648 · doi:10.1002/hipo.23313

Extrahippocampal contributions to spatial navigation in humans: A review of the neuroimaging evidence

2021· review· en· W3132964648 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Baumann, Jason B. Mattingley

Bibliographic record

VenueHippocampus · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersCentre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function, Australian Research Council
KeywordsRetrosplenial cortexNeurosciencePsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingSpatial memoryHippocampusCognitionCognitive psychologyWorking memory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial navigation is a crucial everyday skill, which when impaired leads to a significant decrease in quality of life. In humans, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has provided extensive insights into the neural underpinnings of navigation skills. Whereas the hippocampus has been recognized as the prime region underpinning navigation abilities, by providing a cognitive map of the environment, imaging studies have also implicated a range of other brain regions. In this review, we provide an overview of the fMRI evidence for extrahippocampal contributions to spatial navigation. We show that the parahippocampal cortex, retrosplenial cortex, dorsal striatum, and the posterior parietal cortex provide important complementary functions, and ultimately form part of a functional network that regulates successful way-finding 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 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)0.001
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHippocampusSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207