↓ Skip to main content

Perspective: Assessing the Flexible Acquisition, Integration, and Deployment of Human Spatial Representations and Information

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Perspective: Assessing the Flexible Acquisition, Integration, and Deployment of Human Spatial Representations and Information
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J. Starrett, Arne D. Ekstrom

Abstract

Studying human spatial navigation in the lab can be challenging, particularly when including non-invasive neural measures like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and scalp encephalography (EEG). While there is broad consensus that human spatial navigation involves both egocentric (self-referenced) and allocentric (world-referenced) coding schemes, exactly how these can be measured in ecologically meaningful situations remains controversial. Here, we explore these two forms of representation and how we might better measure them by reviewing commonly used spatial memory tasks and proposing a new task: the relative vector discrimination (RVD) task. Additionally, we explore how different encoding modalities (desktop virtual reality, immersive virtual reality, maps, and real-world navigation) might alter how egocentric and allocentric representations manifest. Specifically, we discuss desktop virtual reality vs. more immersive forms of navigation that better approximate real-world situations, and the extent to which less immersive encoding modalities alter neural and cognitive codes engaged during navigation more generally. We conclude that while encoding modality likely alters navigation-related codes to some degree, including egocentric and allocentric representations, it does not fundamentally change the underlying representations. Considering these arguments together, we suggest that tools to study human navigation in the lab, such as desktop virtual reality, provide overall a reasonable approximation of in vivo navigation, with some caveats.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 37%
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 33%
Neuroscience 11 20%
Computer Science 5 9%
Chemistry 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 July 2022.
All research outputs
#6,116,535
of 25,010,497 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,304
of 7,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,012
of 332,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#48
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,010,497 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 332,351 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.