Spatial Navigation: A question of scale
An fMRI experiment reveals distinct brain regions that respond in a graded manner as humans process distance information across increasing spatial scales.
- University of Sydney, Australia
- Macquarie University, Australia
Just like our ancestors before us, humans must be able to navigate within both familiar and new environments, whether this involves driving to work or finding our way around a new city. Successful spatial navigation depends on many cognitive processes including memory, attention, and our perception of direction and distance (Epstein et al., 2017). A key issue, however, is that spatial environments vary considerably in terms of their size and complexity. To date most research on spatial navigation has focused on small spatial scales, such as navigating within a room or a building (Wolbers and Wiener, 2014). But it remains unclear how accurately we can estimate distances between locations on a larger scale, such as whether the Taj Mahal is closer to the Pyramids of Giza or the Great Wall of China, and how these different spatial scales are represented in the brain.
Now, in eLife, Michael Peer, Yorai Ron, Rotem Monsa and Shahar Arzy – who are based at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Hadassah Medical Center and the University of Pennsylvania – report a simple but elegant experiment that teases apart which brain regions are recruited when we process information about environments that are on different spatial scales (Peer et al., 2019). Peer et al. asked internationally-travelled adults to provide the names of two locations they were personally familiar with across six spatial ‘scales’. These scales varied from small, spatially-confined areas (e.g. rooms and buildings) through medium-sized regions (e.g. local neighborhoods and cities) to expansive geographical locations (e.g. countries and continents; Figure 1A). The experiment was then personalized by asking each participant to provide the names of eight items that were personally familiar to them within each location.
Figure 1
How different spatial environments are represented in the human brain.
(A) In order to navigate successfully humans must be able to judge distances between objects on both small (e.g. rooms and buildings) and large (e.g. cities and countries) scales. (B) Peer et al. showed that estimating distance across different spatial scales engages three main clusters of brain regions that are organized along a gradient (represented by the white dashed lines in each hemisphere). Within each cluster, spatial environments that are smaller and more constrained (red and orange) are represented in posterior portions, whilst larger, less-constrained environments (blue and purple) are represented in more anterior portions of the clusters. The middle surface of the brain (where the right and left hemispheres meet) is shown in the upper panels; the outer surfaces of the two hemispheres are shown below.
Image credit: Adapted from Peer et al. (2019).
A few days later, participants underwent a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment to determine which areas of the brain are selectively involved during spatial processing. This technique enables researchers to measure increases in blood flow and oxygen delivery to parts of the brain, and determine which regions are more ‘active’ when engaging in a cognitive task. During the experiment, participants were asked to judge distances between a ‘target’ item from their personal list (e.g. a table in their bedroom) and two other items from the same location (e.g. a chair or a bed in their bedroom). This allowed Peer et al. to investigate which brain regions respond to small, medium, and large spatial scales, and which regions are insensitive to scale but respond to other location or proximity information.
The experiment identified three main clusters of brain regions that are important for processing different spatial scales. What was unique about all three clusters was that activity within them shifted in a ‘graded’ manner depending on whether participants were processing spatial information on a local or more global scale. For example, when participants judged distances on a small scale in local environments, this engaged the posterior portions of all three clusters. On the other hand, when participants judged distances on a larger scale, the pattern of activity shifted towards the anterior portions of the clusters (Figure 1B).
These findings align remarkably well with previous work showing that the human hippocampus – a region of the brain involved in spatial navigation (Burgess et al., 2002) – represents object position and spatial information, such as direction and distance between objects, as a graded pattern of activity (Evensmoen et al., 2015; Evensmoen et al., 2013). The latest study, however, extends our understanding by highlighting how graded patterns of activity move from posterior to anterior regions of the spatial processing network outside of the hippocampus, depending on the spatial scale being processed (Figure 1).
The work presented here provides new insights into how humans navigate within different environments. From a clinical perspective, appreciating how humans dynamically zoom in or out of different spatial scales could help refine how various neurological conditions are diagnosed. This is most relevant for neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, in which disorientation and a distorted sense of direction are often early symptoms (Coughlan et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2015). Whether the altered sense of direction and difficulties in judging proximity that are associated with Alzheimer’s disease are due to changes in the way that regions of the brain represent spatial scale is an important question for future studies to address.
References
-
Spatial navigation deficits - overlooked cognitive marker for preclinical Alzheimer disease?Nature Reviews Neurology 14:496–506.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-018-0031-x
-
The cognitive map in humans: spatial navigation and beyondNature Neuroscience 20:1504–1513.https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4656
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2019, Irish and Ramanan
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,907
- views
-
- 121
- downloads
-
- 1
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Spatial Navigation: A question of scale
eLife 8:e50890.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50890
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
The role of striatal pathways in cognitive processing is unclear. We studied dorsomedial striatal cognitive processing during interval timing, an elementary cognitive task that requires mice to estimate intervals of several seconds and involves working memory for temporal rules as well as attention to the passage of time. We harnessed optogenetic tagging to record from striatal D2-dopamine receptor-expressing medium spiny neurons (D2-MSNs) in the indirect pathway and from D1-dopamine receptor-expressing MSNs (D1-MSNs) in the direct pathway. We found that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs exhibited distinct dynamics over temporal intervals as quantified by principal component analyses and trial-by-trial generalized linear models. MSN recordings helped construct and constrain a four-parameter drift-diffusion computational model in which MSN ensemble activity represented the accumulation of temporal evidence. This model predicted that disrupting either D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs would increase interval timing response times and alter MSN firing. In line with this prediction, we found that optogenetic inhibition or pharmacological disruption of either D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs increased interval timing response times. Pharmacologically disrupting D2-MSNs or D1-MSNs also changed MSN dynamics and degraded trial-by-trial temporal decoding. Together, our findings demonstrate that D2-MSNs and D1-MSNs had opposing dynamics yet played complementary cognitive roles, implying that striatal direct and indirect pathways work together to shape temporal control of action. These data provide novel insight into basal ganglia cognitive operations beyond movement and have implications for human striatal diseases and therapies targeting striatal pathways.
-
- Neuroscience
Chronic pain is a prevalent and debilitating condition whose neural mechanisms are incompletely understood. An imbalance of cerebral excitation and inhibition (E/I), particularly in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), is believed to represent a crucial mechanism in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. Thus, identifying a non-invasive, scalable marker of E/I could provide valuable insights into the neural mechanisms of chronic pain and aid in developing clinically useful biomarkers. Recently, the aperiodic component of the electroencephalography (EEG) power spectrum has been proposed to represent a non-invasive proxy for E/I. We, therefore, assessed the aperiodic component in the mPFC of resting-state EEG recordings in 149 people with chronic pain and 115 healthy participants. We found robust evidence against differences in the aperiodic component in the mPFC between people with chronic pain and healthy participants, and no correlation between the aperiodic component and pain intensity. These findings were consistent across different subtypes of chronic pain and were similarly found in a whole-brain analysis. Their robustness was supported by preregistration and multiverse analyses across many different methodological choices. Together, our results suggest that the EEG aperiodic component does not differentiate between people with chronic pain and healthy individuals. These findings and the rigorous methodological approach can guide future studies investigating non-invasive, scalable markers of cerebral dysfunction in people with chronic pain and beyond.
