↓ Skip to main content

Challenges for identifying the neural mechanisms that support spatial navigation: the impact of spatial scale

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
273 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
Challenges for identifying the neural mechanisms that support spatial navigation: the impact of spatial scale
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00571
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Wolbers, Jan M. Wiener

Abstract

Spatial navigation is a fascinating behavior that is essential for our everyday lives. It involves nearly all sensory systems, it requires numerous parallel computations, and it engages multiple memory systems. One of the key problems in this field pertains to the question of reference frames: spatial information such as direction or distance can be coded egocentrically-relative to an observer-or allocentrically-in a reference frame independent of the observer. While many studies have associated striatal and parietal circuits with egocentric coding and entorhinal/hippocampal circuits with allocentric coding, this strict dissociation is not in line with a growing body of experimental data. In this review, we discuss some of the problems that can arise when studying the neural mechanisms that are presumed to support different spatial reference frames. We argue that the scale of space in which a navigation task takes place plays a crucial role in determining the processes that are being recruited. This has important implications, particularly for the inferences that can be made from animal studies in small scale space about the neural mechanisms supporting human spatial navigation in large (environmental) spaces. Furthermore, we argue that many of the commonly used tasks to study spatial navigation and the underlying neuronal mechanisms involve different types of reference frames, which can complicate the interpretation of neurophysiological data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 261 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 25%
Researcher 44 16%
Student > Master 41 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 39 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 86 32%
Neuroscience 59 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 4%
Engineering 9 3%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 50 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,263,572
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,116
of 7,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,828
of 231,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#53
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 231,274 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.