CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 205Spatial Cognition and NavigationMemory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and Influences

Retrosplenial cortex codes for permanent landmarks

Open access
Auger, Stephen D., Mullally, Sinéad L., Maguire, Eleanor A.·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0043620PMC PMC3422332
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Landmarks are critical components of our internal representation of the environment, yet their specific properties are rarely studied, and little is known about how they are processed in the brain. Here we characterised a large set of landmarks along a range of features that included size, visual salience, navigational utility, and permanence. When human participants viewed images of these single landmarks during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), parahippocampal cortex (PHC) and retrosplenial cortex (RSC) were both engaged by landmark features, but in different ways. PHC responded to a range of landmark attributes, while RSC was engaged by only the most permanent landmarks. Furthermore, when participants were divided into good and poor navigators, the latter were significantly less reliable at identifying the most permanent landmarks, and had reduced responses in RSC and anterodorsal thalamus when viewing such landmarks. The RSC has been widely implicated in navigation but its precise role remains uncertain. Our findings suggest that a primary function of the RSC may be to process the most stable features in an environment, and this could be a prerequisite for successful navigation.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Landmark attributes in this fMRI study resolved into two components, one non-permanence and one permanence-related; parahippocampal cortex responded to both, whereas retrosplenial cortex responded specifically to the most permanent landmarks. Poor navigators were less reliable at identifying the most permanent landmarks and showed reduced RSC and anterodorsal thalamus responses to them.

Key findings

  • Across 683 outdoor items rated by 48 behavioural participants, principal components analysis yielded two factors accounting for 81.94% of variance: navigational utility, size, visual salience, and SD/SA loaded on factor 1; permanence, post-scan permanence, and distance moves loaded on factor 2.
  • In 32 fMRI participants, PHC showed parametric responses to both factors, while RSC (BA 29/30) responded specifically to the most permanent landmarks; direct contrast of most vs least permanent landmarks engaged RSC (−6, −46, 4; Z = 4.22) and PHC.
  • Good and poor navigators (n = 16 each, median split on SBSOD) did not differ on ratings 1–4 for permanence, but poor navigators were significantly less reliable for the most permanent landmarks (behavioural sample: t14 = 2.183, p = 0.047; fMRI sample: t30 = 2.082, p = 0.046).
  • When viewing the most permanent landmarks, good navigators had greater activity than poor navigators in RSC (−3, −49, 13; Z = 2.83) and anterodorsal thalamus (0, −4, 13; Z = 3.87); no PHC difference was found.

Methods

  • Behavioural studies: 48 healthy right-handed participants rated 683 single outdoor items on navigational utility, size, visual salience, SD/SA, permanence, and portability; an optimised set of 280 stimuli was selected for fMRI.
  • fMRI study: 32 healthy right-handed participants, naive to the landmark purpose, viewed each landmark once during a vigilance task (mean accuracy 93.7%, SD 8.75); whole-brain GLM used parametric regressors from Anderson-Rubin factor scores, with anatomical ROI analyses for PHC and RSC.
  • Individual differences: participants completed the SBSOD after scanning; good and poor navigator groups were compared on ratings, fMRI responses, and voxel-based morphometry, with no structural brain differences detected.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: the fMRI task did not involve active navigation; participants merely viewed single, isolated landmarks while performing a vigilance task, so the findings concern automatic responses rather than navigation behaviour.
  • Evident from the text: navigation ability was indexed by the self-report SBSOD and split by median into two groups of n = 16, and the stimuli were static images rather than real-world environments.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0043620

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 56 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    PHC responds to a range of landmark attributes.

    “PHC responded to a range of landmark attributes”
    • Also stated in: § Neural Substrates of Landmark Properties · plain
      “In summary, all of the landmark attributes (i.e. both factors) significantly engaged PHC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Poor navigators have reduced responses in RSC and anterodorsal thalamus when viewing the most permanent landmarks.

    “had reduced responses in RSC and anterodorsal thalamus when viewing such landmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    RSC is engaged by only the most permanent landmarks.

    “RSC was engaged by only the most permanent landmarks.”
    • Also stated in: § Neural Substrates of Landmark Properties · plain
      “RSC was sensitive specifically to the most permanent landmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Poor navigators are significantly less reliable at identifying the most permanent landmarks.

    “the latter were significantly less reliable at identifying the most permanent landmarks”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Permanence-related features induced further strong activation in RSC (specifically BA 29/30).

    “However, permanence related-features induced further strong activation in RSC (specifically BA 29/30).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Parahippocampal cortex (PHC) and retrosplenial cortex (RSC) are both engaged by landmark features, but in different ways.

    “parahippocampal cortex (PHC) and retrosplenial cortex (RSC) were both engaged by landmark features, but in different ways.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    fMRI participants performed the vigilance task with high accuracy (mean 93.7%; SD 8.75).

    “They performed with a high level of accuracy (mean 93.7%; SD 8.75)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For permanence-related landmark attributes loaded onto factor 2, RSC response profile was not linear; there was a large increase specifically to the most permanent landmarks.

    “for the permanence-related landmark attributes loaded onto factor 2, its profile of response was not linear. Instead, what is quite apparent from Figure 3B is the large increase in RSC response specifically to the landmarks that were the most permanent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two navigator groups differed solely in decisions about the most permanent landmarks, with poor navigators showing particularly low agreement.

    “The two groups differed solely in the decisions they made about the most permanent landmarks, where the poor navigators in particular could not agree.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no clear differences between good and poor navigators in the number of high consensus items for navigational utility, size, visual salience, or SD/SA.

    “there were no clear differences between good and poor navigators in the number of high consensus items for navigational utility, size, visual salience, or SD/SA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For permanence-related features, there was a large discrepancy between amounts of agreement within groups, with greater consensus about permanence and portability among good navigators and less among poor navigators.

    “However, for ratings of permanence-related features of landmarks, there was a large discrepancy between the amounts of agreement within the groups (see Figure 4A), with much greater consensus about the permanence and portability of landmarks among the good navigators and much less among the poor navigators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no differences in any other brain regions, including PHC, and no brain areas were more active for poor navigators.

    “There were no differences in any other brain regions, including the PHC, and no brain areas were more active for poor navigators.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Despite being labelled scene-selective, PHC and RSC do not require scenes to be engaged, instead activating strongly to features of single isolated landmarks.

    “In conclusion, our results provide further evidence that despite being labelled as ‘scene-selective’ cortex [70]–[75], PHC and RSC do not in fact require scenes in order to be engaged, instead activating strongly in response to features of single isolated landmarks (see also [30]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [70]–[75]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30] Mullally SL, Maguire EA (2011) A new role for the parahippocampal cortex in representing space. J Neurosci 31: 7441– 7449. 21593327 PMC3101571

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The specific properties of landmarks are rarely studied and little is known about how they are processed in the brain.

    “yet their specific properties are rarely studied, and little is known about how they are processed in the brain.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
      “There is a relative dearth of information about landmark features because it has proved difficult to develop an agreed method for assessing landmark properties [11].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Caduff D, Timpf S (2008) On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cog Proc 9: 249– 267. 17999102

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In some theoretical formulations, landmarks are cast as the very building blocks of environmental representations.

    “In some theoretical formulations, landmarks are cast as the very building blocks of environmental representations [2], [4], [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] Siegel A, White S (1975) The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese HW, editor. Advances in Child Development and Behaviour. Academic Press. 9–55. 1101663

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [5] Downs RM, Stea D (1977) Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping. Harper & Row.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Landmarks are critical components of our internal representation of the environment.

    “Landmarks are critical components of our internal representation of the environment, yet their specific properties are rarely studied, and little is known about how they are processed in the brain.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
      “prominent features in an environment, known as landmarks, have been posited to play a role [1]–[3].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1]–[3]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The RSC has been widely implicated in navigation but its precise role remains uncertain.

    “The RSC has been widely implicated in navigation but its precise role remains uncertain.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [36] Maguire EA (2001) The retrosplenial contribution to human navigation: a review of lesion and neuroimaging findings. Scand J Psychol 42: 225– 238. 11501737

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The real-world route study utilised permanent landmarks at decision points and observed additional activity in RSC and along the parietal-occipital sulcus.

    “although this latter study utilised permanent landmarks (buildings) at decision points and observed additional activity in retrosplenial cortex (RSC) and along the parietal-occipital sulcus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Schinazi VR, Epstein RA (2010) Neural correlates of real-world route learning. Neuroimage 53: 725– 735. 20603219

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Posterior PHC has been shown to be particularly responsive to items encountered at navigationally relevant decision points in a virtual reality museum.

    “posterior parahippocampal cortex (PHC) has been shown to be particularly responsive to items (in this case toys) encountered at navigationally relevant decision points in a virtual reality museum [26]–[28].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26]–[28]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Good and poor navigators were matched for proportion and speed of catch trial dot detection during scanning.

    “the proportion (good 92.6%, SD 9.83; poor 94.8%, SD 7.69; t30 = −0.713; p = 0.48) and speed (good 416 ms, SD 80.1; poor 456 ms, SD 81.5; t30 = −1.383; p = 0.18) of catch trial dot detection during scanning”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Control of hippocampal place cells during cognitive map formation is stronger when landmarks are stable.

    “Control of hippocampal place cells during cognitive map formation is known to be stronger when landmarks are stable [31]–[33].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31]–[33]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    ROI analysis concurred with and extended whole-brain results, showing PHC was influenced by parametric changes in a wide range of landmark properties, whereas RSC was sensitive specifically to the most permanent landmarks.

    “the ROI analysis concurred with and extended the whole-brain results, showing that activity in PHC was influenced by parametric changes in a wide range of landmark properties, whereas RSC was sensitive specifically to the most permanent landmarks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The factor analysis confirmed the presence of two key components in the landmark features and highlighted permanence of landmarks as a distinct factor.

    “Thus the factor analysis confirmed the presence of two key components in the landmark features that we assessed (see examples in Figure 1; see also Figure S2), and in particular highlighted permanence of landmarks as a distinct factor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The fMRI participants were naïve to the purpose of the experiment and performed an incidental vigilance task while viewing each landmark.

    “the participants in the fMRI study were naïve to our interest in landmarks and their properties, and during scanning merely viewed each image one at time and performed a vigilance task – pressing a button if a blue dot appeared on an item.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In cognitive map theory, spatial relations between landmarks are regarded as the basis for a critical form of flexible navigation.

    “In others, such as the cognitive map theory, spatial relations between landmarks are regarded as the basis for a critical form of flexible navigation [6], [7]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [6] O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Manns JR, Eichenbaum H (2009) A cognitive map for object memory in the hippocampus. Learn Mem 16: 616– 624. 19794187 PMC2769165

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Head direction cells may provide a mechanism for registering permanent landmarks and anchoring neural responses to them for use in environmental representations.

    “which may provide a mechanism for registering permanent landmarks, and anchoring neural responses to them for use in environmental representations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Outdoor SD landmarks and indoor SD objects were associated with increased activity in PHC.

    “Outdoor SD landmarks as well as indoor SD objects were associated with increased activity in PHC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Mullally SL, Maguire EA (2011) A new role for the parahippocampal cortex in representing space. J Neurosci 31: 7441– 7449. 21593327 PMC3101571

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The final set of 280 stimuli minimised correlations between item attributes while ensuring a broad range of values for each attribute.

    “Most importantly, we also ensured that the final set of stimuli minimised the correlations between the item attributes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The combination of size and permanence evokes a strong sense of space surrounding single acontextual objects, rendering them space-defining, even when imagined or viewed in isolation.

    “the combination of these two features was found to evoke a strong sense of space surrounding single acontextual objects (rendering them ‘space-defining’ - SD) even when imagined or viewed in isolation [30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Mullally SL, Maguire EA (2011) A new role for the parahippocampal cortex in representing space. J Neurosci 31: 7441– 7449. 21593327 PMC3101571

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The ratings made by behavioural and scan participants were comparable, and the landmark characterisations made by behavioural study participants were appropriate to use in the fMRI analyses.

    “This confirmed that the ratings made by the behavioural and scan participants were comparable, and that the landmark characterisations made by the behavioural study participants were appropriate to use in the fMRI analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Landmark permanence has long been held to be a prerequisite for constructing effective cognitive maps.

    “landmark permanence has long been held to be a prerequisite for constructing effective cognitive maps [6].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford University Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Several properties of landmarks have been highlighted as potentially important, including permanence, navigational utility, and visual features.

    “Several properties of landmarks have been highlighted as potentially important [12], including the permanence or stability of the landmark (i.e. the likelihood of the landmark being present), its usefulness for navigation (e.g. proximity to a decision point), and its visual features (e.g. size, salience, visibility).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Burnett G, Smith D, May A (2001) Supporting the navigation task: Characteristics of ‘good’ landmarks. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Even accounts that emphasise navigation via path integration acknowledge the role of landmarks in maintaining accuracy.

    “while even accounts that emphasise navigation via path integration (i.e. estimating current location based on the movements made since the last known location), acknowledge the role of landmarks in maintaining accuracy [8], [9].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [8] Gallistel CR (1990) The Organization of Learning. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Yoder RM, Clark BJ, Taube JS (2011) Origins of landmark encoding in the brain. Trends Neurosci 34: 561– 571. 21982585 PMC3200508

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    High vigilance accuracy showed that participants focused on the dot-detection task and maintained attention during the experiment.

    “showing they focussed on this dot-detection task and maintained attention during the experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is a relative dearth of information about landmark features because it has proved difficult to develop an agreed method for assessing landmark properties.

    “There is a relative dearth of information about landmark features because it has proved difficult to develop an agreed method for assessing landmark properties [11].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Caduff D, Timpf S (2008) On the assessment of landmark salience for human navigation. Cog Proc 9: 249– 267. 17999102

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other regions known to contain head direction cells include anterodorsal thalamus and postsubiculum.

    “other regions known, at least in animals, to contain head direction cells such as anterodorsal thalamus and the postsubiculum [9]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] Yoder RM, Clark BJ, Taube JS (2011) Origins of landmark encoding in the brain. Trends Neurosci 34: 561– 571. 21982585 PMC3200508

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Similar PHC activation has also been found for landmarks on real-world routes.

    “Similar PHC activation has also been found for landmarks on real-world routes [29]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] Schinazi VR, Epstein RA (2010) Neural correlates of real-world route learning. Neuroimage 53: 725– 735. 20603219

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (SBSOD) is a self-report questionnaire that correlates strongly with actual navigation ability and is a reliable proxy for real-world wayfinding performance.

    “This is a self-report questionnaire that has been shown to correlate strongly with actual navigation ability, and is increasingly used as a reliable proxy for real-world wayfinding performance [27], [28], [40].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [27] Janzen G, Jansen C, van Turennout M (2008) Memory consolidation of landmarks in good navigators. Hippocampus 18: 40– 47. 17924521

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Wegman J, Janzen G (2011) Neural encoding of objects relevant for navigation and resting state correlations with navigational ability. J Cogn Neurosci 23: 3841– 3854. 21671733

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [40] Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, Lovelace K, Subbiah I (2002) Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30: 425– 447.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patients with RSC lesions are still able to recognise landmarks but are unable to derive navigational information from them and become disoriented.

    “patients with RSC lesions, while still able to recognise landmarks, are unable to derive navigational information from them and so become disoriented [36], [37].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [36] Maguire EA (2001) The retrosplenial contribution to human navigation: a review of lesion and neuroimaging findings. Scand J Psychol 42: 225– 238. 11501737

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no significant differences between males and females in behavioural, VBM, and fMRI data.

    “we also analysed all of the behavioural, VBM, and fMRI data to compare males and females directly, and did not find any significant differences between the sexes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Temporary inactivation of the rat RSC transiently alters the spatial tuning of hippocampal place cells.

    “This view is compatible with the observation that temporary inactivation of the rat RSC transiently alters the spatial tuning of hippocampal place cells [52].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [52] Cooper BG, Mizumori SJY (2001) Temporary inactivation of the retrosplenial cortex causes a transient reorganization of spatial coding in the hippocampus. J Neurosci 21: 3986– 4001. 11356886 PMC6762703

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The identification of permanent landmarks could be an intermediate between egocentric experience of the environment and use of landmark permanence information in allocentric spatial representations.

    “The identification of permanent landmarks could be viewed as an intermediate between egocentric experience of the environment and then the use of landmark permanence information in allocentric spatial representations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The apparent importance of boundaries in cognitive maps may relate to underlying properties such as their general stability during navigation.

    “Indeed, the pre-eminence of boundaries in cognitive maps has been questioned, with Lew [10] arguing that the apparent importance of boundaries may in fact relate to underlying properties such as their general stability during navigation, which resonates with our findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Lew AR (2011) Looking beyond the boundaries: time to put landmarks back on the cognitive map? Psych Bull 137: 484– 507. 21299273

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In the real world, boundaries are often comprised of landmarks, whereas this is not typically the case in rat enclosures.

    “In the real world, however, boundaries are often comprised of landmarks, e.g. large buildings, whereas this is not typically the case in rat enclosures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Information about landmark permanence coded in RSC may be shared with the medial temporal lobes, contributing to the formation of environmental representations.

    “Given its strong connectivity with the hippocampal region [37], [48]–[51], information about the permanence of landmarks that is coded in RSC may be shared with the medial temporal lobes, contributing to the formation of environmental representations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48]–[51]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Several animal navigation studies have linked the RSC to processing behaviourally-significant and predictive environmental cues.

    “Moreover, several animal navigation studies have linked the RSC to processing behaviourally-significant and predictive environmental cues [53]–[58].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [53]–[58]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Anatomical masks for PHC and RSC were delineated by an experienced researcher not involved in the project.

    “Anatomical masks for the PHC and RSC (defined as BA 29/30) were delineated by an experienced researcher not involved in the project on an averaged structural MRI brain scan from different set of n = 30 participants, and guided by Duvernoy [80] and Vann et al. [37].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [80] Duvernoy H (1999) The Human Brain: Surface, Three-Dimensional Sectional Anatomy with MRI, and Blood Supply. Springer.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The output of this process may be made available upstream to other medial temporal regions in the navigation system.

    “The output of this process may then be made available upstream to other medial temporal regions in the navigation system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The anterodorsal thalamus is heavily connected with RSC and contains head direction cells.

    “The anterodorsal thalamus is heavily connected with the RSC [37] and head direction cells are also present there [68].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [68] Taube JS (1995) Head direction cells recorded in the anterior thalamic nuclei of freely moving rats. J Neurosci 15: 70– 86. 7823153 PMC6578288

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Spatial frequency did not load strongly on either the non-permanence or permanence factors, confirming that it did not influence the findings.

    “Spatial frequency did not load strongly on either the non-permanence or permanence factors, confirming that it did not influence our findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Damage to the anterodorsal thalamus causes spatial learning and memory impairments, and the thalamus with RSC and hippocampus is thought to form a key circuit for spatial memory and recollection.

    “Damage to this region is known to cause spatial learning and memory impairments [69], and along with the RSC and hippocampus, the thalamus is thought to form a key circuit for spatial memory and recollection [37], [69].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] Vann SD, Aggleton JP, Maguire EA (2009) What does the retrosplenial cortex do? Nat Rev Neurosci 10: 792– 802. 19812579

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Aggleton JP, O’Mara SM, Vann SD, Wright NF, Tsanov M, et al (2010) Hippocampal-anterior thalamic pathways for memory: uncovering a network of direct and indirect actions. Eur J Neurosci 31: 2292– 2307. 20550571 PMC2936113

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    RSC activation in scenes, navigation, autobiographical memory, and future thinking may reflect processing of permanent features, helping to reconstruct a stable backdrop.

    “Activation of the RSC in such instances may simply (but crucially) reflect the processing of permanent features in those scenes or events, thus helping to (re)construct a stable backdrop.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
47 of 47

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Subjective ratings of how often an item's position would change in everyday life index the actual permanence of landmarks in the environment.

    “Permanence: How often would you expect the position of this item to change in everyday life? (1) Very often (2) often (3) occasionally (4) rarely (5) never.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 280 selected stimuli are representative of landmarks generally.

    “Using these ratings, we selected an optimised set of 280 stimuli for use in the fMRI experiment (this number was the most that could be viewed within a reasonable time in the scanner).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The majority of experiments involving landmarks have focused on their use or presence during active navigation or other spatial tasks, so landmark properties have received less attention.

    “the majority of experiments involving landmarks have focused on their use or presence during active navigation or other spatial tasks. By contrast, the properties of the landmarks themselves have received much less attention”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effect of RSC lesions on landmark/cue permanence per se had not been explicitly examined before this study.

    “While the nature of the tasks varies, it is interesting to note that many of them involved fixed or more stable (distal) cues although, to our knowledge, the effect of RSC lesions on landmark/cue permanence per se has not been explicitly examined.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Landmark permanence had not been tested in the context of RSC damage in humans before this study.

    “In humans, too, landmark permanence has not been tested in the context of RSC damage.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The question of where landmark permanence is itself coded had not been addressed directly before this study.

    “The question of where landmark permanence is itself coded has not been addressed directly.”
6 of 6

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 cingulum has a specific role in landmark navigation.

    “emphasising a specific role in landmark navigation (Auger et al., 2012).”

    From The cingulum bundle: Anatomy, function, and dysfunction (2018) · cites this paper as Auger et al., 2012

    The Discussion links retrosplenial cortex (RSC) activity to processing permanent landmarks, but does not establish a specific role for the cingulum. Searches for the cingulum and its role in landmark navigation found no passage addressing that structure; the paper's RSC finding cannot verify the claim about the cingulum. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The observation that retrosplenial cortex only comes to code distance to goal after extended experience with the environment is consistent with several past studies which have observed increased activity in retrosplenial cortex with acquisition of spatial knowledge.

    “Our observation that retrosplenial cortex only comes to code the distance to the goal after extended experience with the environment is consistent with several past studies which have observed increased activity in the retrosplenial cortex with the acquisition of spatial knowledge about an environment (Wolbers and Büchel 2005; Auger et al. 2012, 2015).”

    From Hippocampal and Retrosplenial Goal Distance Coding After Long-term Consolidation of a Real-World Environment (2019) · cites this paper as Auger et al. 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Lynch K (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Auger, S. D., Mullally, S. L., & Maguire, E. A.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Maguire, Eleanor A.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-08-17
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
e43620
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0043620
PMC
PMC3422332
OpenAlex
W2119630138
Semantic Scholar
cd4c0f602c78a836a3c40e32a7bd05591403f9a2
Cited by
205
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
18.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (091593, 101759)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
retrosplenial cortex, parahippocampal cortex, spatial navigation, environmental representation, visual saliency, spatial memory
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Space Perception, Spatial Behavior, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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