Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Allocentric and egocentric spatial information processing in the hippocampal formation of the behaving primate

Open access
Feigenbaum, Janet D., Rolls, Edmund T.·1991·Psychobiology

Abstract

To investigate how space is represented in the primate hippocampus, the activity of single neurons was recorded in the hippocampus of behaving macaque monkeys. Neurons that responded differently according to the position on a screen in which a stimulus was shown when the monkey had to remember the stimulus and its position were analyzed for their spatial fields. By moving the monkey into different positions relative to the screen, and the screen to different positions in the room, it was possible to separate neuronal representations in egocentric coordinates (i.e., defined relative to the monkey’s body axis) from representations in local allocentric coordinates (i.e., defined relative to the frame of reference provided by the screen on which the stimuli were displayed) and from representations in absolute allocentric coordinates (i.e., defined relative to absolute position in the room). It was found that 44% of the spatial neurons analyzed in these experiments responded in relation to space defined by the local frame of reference and not in relation to space defined in egocentric or in absolute allocentric coordinates. Two percent of the neurons responded in relation to the absolute position of a stimulus in the room (in absolute allocentric coordinates). Ten percent responded in relation to egocentric coordinates. Forty-four percent responded to a combination of the different coordinate systems investigated, including 23% that were shown to include an absolute allocentric component. Thus the main finding was that in the primate hippocampus many spatial cells (69% of those analyzed) responded in relation to allocentric coordinates, in many cases in relation to a local frame of reference and in some cases in relation to the absolute position of the stimulus in the room. In Experiment 2, the possibility of retinotopic encoding was investigated by presenting test spots of light at different positions relative to a fixation spot, and in different blocks of trials by moving the fixation spot to different positions on the screen. It was found that very few hippocampal cells were responsive in this task, and that for the cells that did respond, the encoding was not retinotopic. These results are consistent with the scarcity of egocentric encoding cells, and the preponderance of allocentric encoding, found in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, it was found that relatively many hippocampal neurons (17%) responded differently according to the spatial position being fixated on the screen, in a task in which a small fixation spot appeared on each trial in a different position on the screen. This result confirms that hippocampal spatial cells do not encode spatial information using retinotopic coordinates, shows that it is sufficient for many of these hippocampal spatial neurons to respond that the monkey fixate particular positions in space, and is consistent with the finding in Experiment 1 that the preponderant type of encoding used by these hippocampal spatial neurons is allocentric.

Overview

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 · 10.1007/bf03337953

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 193

Metadata

Authors
Feigenbaum, J. D., & Rolls, E. T.
Venue
Psychobiology
Published
1991-03
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
21-40
ISSN
0889-6313 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105896030
Cited by
193
References
3
FWCI
7.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.