Cited by 121Spatial Cognition and NavigationMemory and Neural MechanismsUrban Design and Spatial Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 201 of the 201 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 280 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

From cognitive maps to spatial schemas

Open access

Abstract

A schema refers to a structured body of prior knowledge that captures common patterns across related experiences. Schemas have been studied separately in the realms of episodic memory and spatial navigation across different species and have been grounded in theories of memory consolidation, but there has been little attempt to integrate our understanding across domains, particularly in humans. We propose that experiences during navigation with many similarly structured environments give rise to the formation of spatial schemas (for example, the expected layout of modern cities) that share properties with but are distinct from cognitive maps (for example, the memory of a modern city) and event schemas (such as expected events in a modern city) at both cognitive and neural levels. We describe earlier theoretical frameworks and empirical findings relevant to spatial schemas, along with more targeted investigations of spatial schemas in human and non-human animals. Consideration of architecture and urban analytics, including the influence of scale and regionalization, on different properties of spatial schemas may provide a powerful approach to advance our understanding of spatial schemas.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The review proposes that spatial schemas are superordinate, generalizable spatial representations formed by integrating spatial gists across multiple similar environments, distinct from environment-specific cognitive maps and event schemas. It synthesizes rodent, human lesion/neuroimaging, and urban-analytics evidence to outline cognitive and neural mechanisms, with HPC–neocortical interactions and extra-HPC hubs such as mPFC, RSC, ERC, and PPC implicated.

Key findings

  • Spatial schemas are proposed as extra-HPC, environment-independent representations that support navigation in novel environments sharing geometric/visuospatial properties; they are distinct from cognitive maps and spatial gists, which remain environment-specific and can be kept distinct via pattern separation.
  • Rodent studies: rats with HPC lesions more than 24 hours after paired-associate learning retained original and novel paired associates, but lesions before 24 hours disrupted acquisition; in the village maze, HPC-lesioned rats with extensive pre-lesion experience learned novel rewarded locations as quickly as controls, whereas inexperienced HPC-lesioned rats took much longer, and performance depended on stable room geometry rather than distal cues.
  • Human evidence: K.C., an individual with bilateral HPC damage, produced accurate sketch maps of his hometown’s overall layout and judged relative distances/directions between major landmarks, but was impaired for minor landmarks and perceptual details; an fMRI analogue showed retrieval activity shifting from HPC to vmPFC after 24 hours and to vlPFC by 90 days, with accelerated consolidation for congruent novel associates from days 91–105.
  • Sea Hero Quest data from about 3.9 million people worldwide found that those who grew up in grid-like cities were generally worse navigators than those from disorganized cities or outside cities, but had a slight advantage in grid-like virtual environments; street network entropy values cited include Prague 3.6 and Chicago 2.5.

Methods

  • Narrative review/conceptual synthesis; no new primary data were collected. It integrates prior theoretical frameworks and empirical findings from rodent spatial navigation, human lesion/amnesia, fMRI, virtual navigation, and urban analytics/space syntax.
  • Evidence discussed includes rodent paradigms (event arena, village maze, HexMaze), human cases (e.g., K.C.), neuroimaging studies, and large-scale virtual navigation data (Sea Hero Quest, ~3.9 million participants, 38 countries). Main analysis is qualitative integration, not meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • Stated: the concept of spatial schema is still emerging; schema operationalizations are heterogeneous (statistical rule learning, associative inference, paired-associate learning, prior knowledge retrieval), and specific experimental paradigms for spatial schemas are needed.
  • Stated: systematic measurement of quantitative differences in real-world spatial organization is a major challenge; future work must determine where and how detailed and schematic spatial representations coexist and whether new schemas can be acquired/updated after HPC lesions.
  • Evident: as a review, it does not directly test the proposed neurocognitive framework; many neural mechanisms and distinctions are proposed or extrapolated from event-schema and animal work, and some cited evidence is indirect.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41583-022-00655-9

Cites

201 of 201 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

169 Not checked yet · 57 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 273 references — free account

Show all 133 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 54
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 62
105 of 105
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The various posterior regions play specialized roles in representing components of surface properties and their relations and/or coding of these properties within local or global scales.

    “although the various posterior regions play specialized roles in representing components of surface properties and their relations and/or coding of these properties within local or global scales”
1 of 1

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 198 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (Clarendon Press, 1978).
  2. Bartlett, F. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 1932).
  3. Lynch, K. The Image of the City. Vol. 11 (MIT Press, 1960).
  4. Sommer, T. The emergence of knowledge and how it supports the memory for novel related information. Cereb. Cortex 27, 1906–1921 (2017).
  5. Rosenbaum, R. S. et al. fMRI studies of remote spatial memory in an amnesic person. Brain Cogn. 54, 170–172 (2004).
  6. Batty, M. Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata, Agent-Based Models, and Fractals (The MIT Press, 2007).
  7. Schirmer, P. M. & Axhausen, K. W. A multiscale classification of urban morphology. J. Transp. Land Use 9, 101–130 (2016).
  8. Schick, W., Halfmann, M., Hardiess, G. & Mallot, H. A. Language cues in the formation of hierarchical representation of space. Cogn. Process. 15, S63–S64 (2014).
  9. Hillier, B. & Julienne, H. The Social Logic of Space (Cambridge University Press, 1989).
  10. Pallasmaa, J. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (John Wiley & Sons, 2012).
  11. Wertheimer, M. in A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology (ed Willis. E) (Humanities Press, 1950).
  12. McNamee, D., Wolpert, D. & Lengyel, M. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS, 2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Farzanfar, D., Spiers, H. J., Moscovitch, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University College London (GB)
  • York University (CA)
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2022-11-21
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
63-79
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W4309646944
Cited by
115
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 24
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Canada First Research Excellence Fund
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Design and Spatial Analysis
Keywords
spatial schema, cognitive maps, event schemas, spatial memory, episodic memory, spatial navigation, memory consolidation, urban layout, urban analytics, scale, regionalization, non-human animals
MeSH terms
Memory Consolidation, Animals, Cognition, Humans

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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