% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Chen:268847,
author = {Chen, Xiaoli and Wei, Ziwei and Wolbers, Thomas},
title = {{R}epetition {S}uppression {R}eveals {C}ue-specific
{S}patial {R}epresentations for {L}andmarks and
{S}elf-motion {C}ues in {H}uman {R}etrosplenial {C}ortex.},
journal = {eNeuro},
volume = {11},
number = {4},
issn = {2373-2822},
address = {Washington, DC},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {DZNE-2024-00351},
pages = {ENEURO.0294-23.2024},
year = {2024},
abstract = {The efficient use of various spatial cues within a setting
is crucial for successful navigation. Two fundamental forms
of spatial navigation, landmark-based and self-motion-based,
engage distinct cognitive mechanisms. The question of
whether these modes invoke shared or separate spatial
representations in the brain remains unresolved. While
nonhuman animal studies have yielded inconsistent results,
human investigation is limited. In our previous work (Chen
et al., 2019), we introduced a novel spatial navigation
paradigm utilizing ultra-high field fMRI to explore neural
coding of positional information. We found that different
entorhinal subregions in the right hemisphere encode
positional information for landmarks and self-motion cues.
The present study tested the generalizability of our
previous finding with a modified navigation paradigm.
Although we did not replicate our previous finding in the
entorhinal cortex, we identified adaptation-based
allocentric positional codes for both cue types in the
retrosplenial cortex (RSC), which were not confounded by the
path to the spatial location. Crucially, the multi-voxel
patterns of these spatial codes differed between the cue
types, suggesting cue-specific positional coding. The
parahippocampal cortex exhibited positional coding for
self-motion cues, which was not dissociable from path
length. Finally, the brain regions involved in successful
navigation differed from our previous study, indicating
overall distinct neural mechanisms recruited in our two
studies. Taken together, the current findings demonstrate
cue-specific allocentric positional coding in the human RSC
in the same navigation task for the first time and that
spatial representations in the brain are contingent on
specific experimental conditions.},
keywords = {Humans / Animals / Cues / Gyrus Cinguli / Entorhinal Cortex
/ Brain / Spatial Navigation / Space Perception / adaptation
(Other) / entorhinal cortex (Other) / landmark (Other) /
path integration (Other) / retrosplenial cortex (Other) /
spatial navigation (Other)},
cin = {AG Wolbers},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-2719)1310002},
pnm = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pmc = {pmc:PMC11007318},
pubmed = {pmid:38519127},
doi = {10.1523/ENEURO.0294-23.2024},
url = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/268847},
}