↓ Skip to main content

Human spatial representation: what we cannot learn from the studies of rodent navigation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, November 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Human spatial representation: what we cannot learn from the studies of rodent navigation
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, November 2018
DOI 10.1152/jn.00781.2017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mintao Zhao

Abstract

Studies of human and rodent navigation often reveal a remarkable cross-species similarity between the cognitive and neural mechanisms of navigation. Such cross-species resemblance often overshadows some critical differences between how humans and nonhuman animals navigate. In this review, I first argued that a navigation system requires both a storage system (i.e., representing spatial information) and a positioning system (i.e., sensing spatial information) to operate. I then argued that the way humans represent spatial information is different from that inferred from the cellular activity observed during rodent navigation. Such difference spans the whole hierarchy of spatial representation, from representing the structure of environment to the representation of sub-regions of an environment, routes and paths, and the distance and direction relative to a goal location. These cross-species inconsistencies suggested that what we learned from rodent navigation does not always transferable to human navigation. Finally, I argue for closing the loop for the dominant, unidirectional animal-to-human approach in navigation research, so that insights from behavioral studies of human navigation may also flow back to shed light on the cellular mechanisms of navigation for both humans and other mammals (i.e., a human-to-animal approach).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 34%
Neuroscience 10 29%
Computer Science 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2019.
All research outputs
#794,079
of 16,008,054 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#105
of 6,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,665
of 279,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#6
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,008,054 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,048 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.