Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:59:56.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A framework for three-dimensional navigation research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

Kathryn J. Jeffery
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive, Perceptual and Brain Sciences, Division of Psychology & Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1H 0AP, United Kingdom. [email protected]/jefferylab/
Aleksandar Jovalekic
Affiliation:
Institute of Neuroinformatics, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. [email protected]
Madeleine Verriotis
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. [email protected]
Robin Hayman
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Alexandra House, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom. [email protected]

Abstract

We have argued that the neurocognitive representation of large-scale, navigable three-dimensional space is anisotropic, having different properties in vertical versus horizontal dimensions. Three broad categories organize the experimental and theoretical issues raised by the commentators: (1) frames of reference, (2) comparative cognition, and (3) the role of experience. These categories contain the core of a research program to show how three-dimensional space is represented and used by humans and other animals.

Type
Authors' Response
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, R. A. & Buneo, C. A. (2002) Intentional maps in posterior parietal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience 25:189220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barry, C., Hayman, R., Burgess, N. & Jeffery, K. J. (2007) Experience-dependent rescaling of entorhinal grids. Nature Neuroscience 10(6):682–84.Google Scholar
Galati, G., Pelle, G., Berthoz, A. & Committeri, G. (2010) Multiple reference frames used by the human brain for spatial perception and memory. Experimental Brain Research 206(2):109–20.Google Scholar
Hayman, R., Verriotis, M. A., Jovalekic, A., Fenton, A. A. & Jeffery, K. J. (2011) Anisotropic encoding of three-dimensional space by place cells and grid cells. Nature Neuroscience 14(9):1182–88.Google Scholar
Langston, R. F., Ainge, J. A., Couey, J. J., Canto, C. B., Bjerknes, T. L., Witter, M. P., Moser, E. I. & Moser, M.-B. (2010) Development of the spatial representation system in the rat. Science 328(5985):1576–80.Google Scholar
Lavie, N. (2005) Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(2):7582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morishita, H. & Hensch, T. K. (2008) Critical period revisited: Impact on vision. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18(1):101107.Google Scholar
Pigarev, I. N. & Levichkina, E. V. (2011) Distance modulated neuronal activity in the cortical visual areas of cats. Experimental Brain Research 214(1):105–11.Google Scholar
Snyder, L. H., Grieve, K. L., Brotchie, P. & Andersen, R. A. (1998) Separate body- and world-referenced representations of visual space in parietal cortex. Nature 394(6696):887–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavosanis, G. (2012) Dendritic structural plasticity. Developmental Neurobiology 72(1):7386.Google Scholar
Thibault, G., Pasqualotto, A., Vidal, M., Droulez, J. & Berthoz, A. (2013) How does horizontal and vertical navigation influence spatial memory of multi-floored environments? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 75(1):1015. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0405-x.Google Scholar
Wills, T. J., Cacucci, F., Burgess, N. & O'Keefe, J. (2010) Development of the hippocampal cognitive map in preweanling rats. Science 328(5985):1573–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed