↓ Skip to main content

No Need for a Cognitive Map: Decentralized Memory for Insect Navigation

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
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
No Need for a Cognitive Map: Decentralized Memory for Insect Navigation
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holk Cruse, Rüdiger Wehner

Abstract

In many animals the ability to navigate over long distances is an important prerequisite for foraging. For example, it is widely accepted that desert ants and honey bees, but also mammals, use path integration for finding the way back to their home site. It is however a matter of a long standing debate whether animals in addition are able to acquire and use so called cognitive maps. Such a 'map', a global spatial representation of the foraging area, is generally assumed to allow the animal to find shortcuts between two sites although the direct connection has never been travelled before. Using the artificial neural network approach, here we develop an artificial memory system which is based on path integration and various landmark guidance mechanisms (a bank of individual and independent landmark-defined memory elements). Activation of the individual memory elements depends on a separate motivation network and an, in part, asymmetrical lateral inhibition network. The information concerning the absolute position of the agent is present, but resides in a separate memory that can only be used by the path integration subsystem to control the behaviour, but cannot be used for computational purposes with other memory elements of the system. Thus, in this simulation there is no neural basis of a cognitive map. Nevertheless, an agent controlled by this network is able to accomplish various navigational tasks known from ants and bees and often discussed as being dependent on a cognitive map. For example, map-like behaviour as observed in honey bees arises as an emergent property from a decentralized system. This behaviour thus can be explained without referring to the assumption that a cognitive map, a coherent representation of foraging space, must exist. We hypothesize that the proposed network essentially resides in the mushroom bodies of the insect brain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 5%
Germany 9 3%
United Kingdom 6 2%
Switzerland 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 216 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 28%
Researcher 44 17%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Professor 11 4%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 37 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 43%
Psychology 24 9%
Neuroscience 23 9%
Computer Science 17 7%
Engineering 9 3%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 43 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 May 2012.
All research outputs
#4,367,791
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#3,580
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,486
of 128,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 128,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.