↓ Skip to main content

How Entorhinal Grid Cells May Learn Multiple Spatial Scales from a Dorsoventral Gradient of Cell Response Rates in a Self-organizing Map

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
How Entorhinal Grid Cells May Learn Multiple Spatial Scales from a Dorsoventral Gradient of Cell Response Rates in a Self-organizing Map
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002648
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Grossberg, Praveen K. Pilly

Abstract

Place cells in the hippocampus of higher mammals are critical for spatial navigation. Recent modeling clarifies how this may be achieved by how grid cells in the medial entorhinal cortex (MEC) input to place cells. Grid cells exhibit hexagonal grid firing patterns across space in multiple spatial scales along the MEC dorsoventral axis. Signals from grid cells of multiple scales combine adaptively to activate place cells that represent much larger spaces than grid cells. But how do grid cells learn to fire at multiple positions that form a hexagonal grid, and with spatial scales that increase along the dorsoventral axis? In vitro recordings of medial entorhinal layer II stellate cells have revealed subthreshold membrane potential oscillations (MPOs) whose temporal periods, and time constants of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs), both increase along this axis. Slower (faster) subthreshold MPOs and slower (faster) EPSPs correlate with larger (smaller) grid spacings and field widths. A self-organizing map neural model explains how the anatomical gradient of grid spatial scales can be learned by cells that respond more slowly along the gradient to their inputs from stripe cells of multiple scales, which perform linear velocity path integration. The model cells also exhibit MPO frequencies that covary with their response rates. The gradient in intrinsic rhythmicity is thus not compelling evidence for oscillatory interference as a mechanism of grid cell firing. A response rate gradient combined with input stripe cells that have normalized receptive fields can reproduce all known spatial and temporal properties of grid cells along the MEC dorsoventral axis. This spatial gradient mechanism is homologous to a gradient mechanism for temporal learning in the lateral entorhinal cortex and its hippocampal projections. Spatial and temporal representations may hereby arise from homologous mechanisms, thereby embodying a mechanistic "neural relativity" that may clarify how episodic memories are learned.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 6%
United Kingdom 3 3%
Germany 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
France 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 84 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 36%
Neuroscience 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Computer Science 8 8%
Psychology 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 14 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,346
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,479
of 191,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#61
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 191,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.