4.8 Article

The human brain uses spatial schemas to represent segmented environments

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 21, 页码 4677-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.012

关键词

-

资金

  1. FULBRIGHT fellowship
  2. Zuckerman STEM Leadership fellowship
  3. NIH [R01EY022350, R01EY031286]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research indicates that humans mentally segment complex environments into subspaces, even when all parts are visible. Neurocognitive mechanisms show that people use both local spatial schemas and integrated spatial maps to represent segmented environments.
Humans and animals use cognitive maps to represent the spatial structure of the environment. Although these maps are typically conceptualized as extending in an equipotential manner across known space, psychological evidence suggests that people mentally segment complex environments into subspaces. To understand the neurocognitive mechanisms behind this operation, we familiarized participants with a virtual courtyard that was divided into two halves by a river; we then used behavioral testing and fMRI to understand how spatial locations were encoded within this environment. Participants' spatial judgments and multivoxel activation patterns were affected by the division of the courtyard, indicating that the presence of a boundary can induce mental segmentation even when all parts of the environment are co-visible. In the hippocampus and occipital place area (OPA), the segmented organization of the environment manifested in schematic spatial codes that represented geometrically equivalent locations in the two subspaces as similar. In the retrosplenial complex (RSC), responses were more consistent with an integrated spatial map. These results demonstrate that people use both local spatial schemas and integrated spatial maps to represent segmented environment. We hypothesize that schematization may serve as a general mechanism for organizing complex knowledge structures in terms of their component elements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据