↓ Skip to main content

A critical review of the allocentric spatial representation and its neural underpinnings: toward a network-based perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
187 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
424 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
A critical review of the allocentric spatial representation and its neural underpinnings: toward a network-based perspective
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00803
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arne D. Ekstrom, Aiden E. G. F. Arnold, Giuseppe Iaria

Abstract

While the widely studied allocentric spatial representation holds a special status in neuroscience research, its exact nature and neural underpinnings continue to be the topic of debate, particularly in humans. Here, based on a review of human behavioral research, we argue that allocentric representations do not provide the kind of map-like, metric representation one might expect based on past theoretical work. Instead, we suggest that almost all tasks used in past studies involve a combination of egocentric and allocentric representation, complicating both the investigation of the cognitive basis of an allocentric representation and the task of identifying a brain region specifically dedicated to it. Indeed, as we discuss in detail, past studies suggest numerous brain regions important to allocentric spatial memory in addition to the hippocampus, including parahippocampal, retrosplenial, and prefrontal cortices. We thus argue that although allocentric computations will often require the hippocampus, particularly those involving extracting details across temporally specific routes, the hippocampus is not necessary for all allocentric computations. We instead suggest that a non-aggregate network process involving multiple interacting brain areas, including hippocampus and extra-hippocampal areas such as parahippocampal, retrosplenial, prefrontal, and parietal cortices, better characterizes the neural basis of spatial representation during navigation. According to this model, an allocentric representation does not emerge from the computations of a single brain region (i.e., hippocampus) nor is it readily decomposable into additive computations performed by separate brain regions. Instead, an allocentric representation emerges from computations partially shared across numerous interacting brain regions. We discuss our non-aggregate network model in light of existing data and provide several key predictions for future experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 424 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 405 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 114 27%
Student > Master 63 15%
Researcher 54 13%
Student > Bachelor 44 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 5%
Other 61 14%
Unknown 65 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 120 28%
Neuroscience 98 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 9%
Computer Science 17 4%
Engineering 15 4%
Other 47 11%
Unknown 90 21%
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 11 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,958,120
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,814
of 7,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,236
of 260,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#78
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 260,183 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 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 68% of its contemporaries.