↓ Skip to main content

Distinct Neural Substrates for Maintaining Locations and Spatial Relations in Working Memory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Distinct Neural Substrates for Maintaining Locations and Spatial Relations in Working Memory
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00594
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kara J. Blacker, Susan M. Courtney

Abstract

Previous work has demonstrated a distinction between maintenance of two types of spatial information in working memory (WM): spatial locations and spatial relations. While a body of work has investigated the neural mechanisms of sensory-based information like spatial locations, little is known about how spatial relations are maintained in WM. In two experiments, we used fMRI to investigate the involvement of early visual cortex in the maintenance of spatial relations in WM. In both experiments, we found less quadrant-specific BOLD activity in visual cortex when a single spatial relation, compared to a single spatial location, was held in WM. Also across both experiments, we found a consistent set of brain regions that were differentially activated during maintenance of locations vs. relations. Maintaining a location, compared to a relation, was associated with greater activity in typical spatial WM regions like posterior parietal cortex and prefrontal regions. Whereas maintaining a relation, compared to a location, was associated with greater activity in the parahippocampal gyrus and precuneus/retrosplenial cortex. Further, in Experiment 2 we manipulated WM load and included trials where participants had to maintain three spatial locations or relations. Under this high load condition, the regions sensitive to locations vs. relations were somewhat different than under low load. We also identified regions that were sensitive to load specifically for location or relation maintenance, as well as overlapping regions sensitive to load more generally. These results suggest that the neural substrates underlying WM maintenance of spatial locations and relations are distinct from one another and that the neural representations of these distinct types of spatial information change with load.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 32%
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Professor 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 42%
Neuroscience 15 30%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,107,581
of 24,585,148 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,825
of 7,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,677
of 424,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#95
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,585,148 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.