Cited by 37Memory and Neural MechanismsSpatial Cognition and NavigationNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Novel encoding and updating of positional, or directional, spatial cues are processed by distinct hippocampal subfields: evidence for parallel information processing and the "what" stream

Open access
Hoang, Thu‐Huong, Aliane, Verena, Manahan‐Vaughan, Denise·2018·Hippocampus

Abstract

The specific roles of hippocampal subfields in spatial information processing and encoding are, as yet, unclear. The parallel map theory postulates that whereas the CA1 processes discrete environmental features (positional cues used to generate a "sketch map"), the dentate gyrus (DG) processes large navigation-relevant landmarks (directional cues used to generate a "bearing map"). Additionally, the two-streams hypothesis suggests that hippocampal subfields engage in differentiated processing of information from the "where" and the "what" streams. We investigated these hypotheses by analyzing the effect of exploration of discrete "positional" features and large "directional" spatial landmarks on hippocampal neuronal activity in rats. As an indicator of neuronal activity we measured the mRNA induction of the immediate early genes (IEGs), Arc and Homer1a. We observed an increase of this IEG mRNA in CA1 neurons of the distal neuronal compartment and in proximal CA3, after novel spatial exploration of discrete positional cues, whereas novel exploration of directional cues led to increases in IEG mRNA in the lower blade of the DG and in proximal CA3. Strikingly, the CA1 did not respond to directional cues and the DG did not respond to positional cues. Our data provide evidence for both the parallel map theory and the two-streams hypothesis and suggest a precise compartmentalization of the encoding and processing of "what" and "where" information occurs within the hippocampal subfields.

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/hipo.22833

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • In a setting of exploring three small "positionally" distinct objects, the distal CA1 and proximal CA3 were recruited during the recognition of a novel object, whereas the proximal CA3 and lower blade of dentate gyrus, but not CA1, were involved in novel object recognition during exploring three large "directionally" distinct objects.

    “For instance, in a setting of exploring three small “positionally” distinct objects, the distal CA1 and proximal CA3, which preferentially receive “what” information (Mishkin et al., 1983), were recruited during the recognition of a novel object (increased mRNA of the immediate early genes Arc and Homer1a), whereas the proximal CA3 and lower blade of dentate gyrus, but not CA1, were involved in”

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

Authors
Hoang, T., Aliane, V., & Manahan‐Vaughan, D.
Affiliations
Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Manahan‐Vaughan, Denise
Venue
Hippocampus
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-19
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
315-326
ISSN
  • 1050-9631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-1063
OpenAlex
W2793966431
Cited by
37
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hippocampus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Research Foundation (SFB874/B1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
hippocampal subfields, spatial coding, positional cues, directional cues, CA1, dentate gyrus, CA3, immediate early genes, Arc, Homer1a, spatial navigation
MeSH terms
Homer Scaffolding Proteins, Animals, Cues, Cytoskeletal Proteins, Exploratory Behavior, Gene Expression Regulation, Hippocampus, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Neurons, Orientation, Space Perception, Rats, Wistar, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Long-Term Synaptic Depression, Memory, Long-Term, Spatial Memory, Spatial Processing

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