CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Spatial Cognition and NavigationMemory and Neural MechanismsVestibular and auditory disorders

Selective neural coding of object, feature, and geometry spatial cues in humans

Open access
Ramanoël, Stephen, Durteste, Marion, Bizeul, Alice, Ozier‐Lafontaine, Anthony, Bécu, Marcia, Sahel, José‐Alain, Habas, Christophe, Arleo, Angelo·2022·Human Brain Mapping
DOI 10.1002/hbm.26002PMC PMC9812241

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Orienting in space requires the processing of visual spatial cues. The dominant hypothesis about the brain structures mediating the coding of spatial cues stipulates the existence of a hippocampal‐dependent system for the representation of geometry and a striatal‐dependent system for the representation of landmarks. However, this dual‐system hypothesis is based on paradigms that presented spatial cues conveying either conflicting or ambiguous spatial information and that used the term landmark to refer to both discrete three‐dimensional objects and wall features. Here, we test the hypothesis of complex activation patterns in the hippocampus and the striatum during visual coding. We also postulate that object‐based and feature‐based navigation are not equivalent instances of landmark‐based navigation. We examined how the neural networks associated with geometry‐, object‐, and feature‐based spatial navigation compared with a control condition in a two‐choice behavioral paradigm using fMRI. We showed that the hippocampus was involved in all three types of cue‐based navigation, whereas the striatum was more strongly recruited in the presence of geometric cues than object or feature cues. We also found that unique, specific neural signatures were associated with each spatial cue. Object‐based navigation elicited a widespread pattern of activity in temporal and occipital regions relative to feature‐based navigation. These findings extend the current view of a dual, juxtaposed hippocampal–striatal system for visual spatial coding in humans. They also provide novel insights into the neural networks mediating object versus feature spatial coding, suggesting a need to distinguish these two types of landmarks in the context of human navigation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.26002

Cites

135 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lack of differences in navigation performance is likely because both the abstract and realistic 3D landmark visualization provided the necessary visual information to guide novice wayfinders in a mostly unfamiliar urban environment.

    “and thus, the lack of differences in navigation performance is likely because both the abstract and realistic 3D landmark visualization provided the necessary visual information to guide novice wayfinders in a mostly unfamiliar urban environment (Ramanoël et al., 2022).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Ramanoël et al., 2022

    The Results (Behavioral results; page unavailable) report equivalent success rates across three visual-cue conditions in a virtual maze, supporting the general point that different cues can guide navigation equally well by that measure. The study did not compare abstract with realistic 3D landmark visualizations or test novice wayfinders in an unfamiliar urban environment; it also found a navigation-time difference between conditions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ramanoël et al. (2022) did not examine different visualization styles of landmark objects, but rather different architectural features of the environment.

    “However, again, this study did not examine different visualization styles of landmark objects, but rather just different architectural features of the environment, and so their findings that more detailed textures reduced cognitive demands during navigation may also apply to landmark objects.”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Ramanoël et al., 2022

    The Materials and Methods (Experimental design; page unavailable) show that the study did not compare visualization styles of landmark objects. But it did not examine only architectural features: it compared discrete objects, colored walls, and maze geometry. The Discussion (Rethinking the concept of landmark in human spatial navigation; page unavailable) speculates that features may demand fewer cognitive resources; it does not report that more detailed textures reduced cognitive demands. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ramanoël et al. (2022) did not find any differences in navigation performance between abstract objects and textured 3D features located at intersections of a 'Y' shaped virtual maze environment.

    “Our findings are also consistent with the results of Ramanoël et al. (2022), who did not find any differences in navigation performance between the abstract objects and textured 3D features located at the intersections of a “Y” shaped virtual maze environment.”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Ramanoël et al., 2022

    The Results (Behavioral results; page unavailable) report equivalent success rates across cue conditions and identify a significant navigation-time difference only between geometry and objects, supporting the reported lack of an object–feature performance difference. The Methods (Experimental design; page unavailable) describe light-gray objects and differently colored walls at the center of the Y-maze, not textured 3D features. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The lack of direct differences in visual attention and spatial learning across the implemented landmark visualization styles could be explained by the visual differences between them being too subtle and by both styles providing the necessary visuospatial cues for successful navigation.

    “The lack of direct differences found in visual attention and spatial learning across the implemented landmark visualization styles could be explained by visual differences between them being too subtle and by the fact that they both provide the necessary visuospatial cues for successful navigation (Ramanoël et al., 2022).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Ramanoël et al., 2022

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ramanoël et al. (2022) found no differences in completion time and success rates across object and feature conditions, indicating that they provide equivalent visuospatial cues to facilitate orientation in space.

    “The navigation performance results revealed no differences in completion time and success rates across the object and feature conditions, indicating that they provide equivalent visuospatial cues to facilitate orientation in space (Ramanoël et al., 2022).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Ramanoël et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ramanoël, S., Durteste, M., Bizeul, A., Ozier‐Lafontaine, A., Bécu, M., Sahel, J., Habas, C., & Arleo, A.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Ramanoël, Stephen
ORCID
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-07
Volume
43
Issue
17
Pages
5281-5295
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
DOI
10.1002/hbm.26002
PMC
PMC9812241
OpenAlex
W4283758641
Cited by
15
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
Keywords
geometric cues, landmark-based navigation, hippocampus, striatum, spatial orientation
MeSH terms
Brain, Corpus Striatum, Cues, Hippocampus, Humans, Space Perception, Spatial Navigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review