| Title |
The hippocampus as a predictive map
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature Neuroscience, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1038/nn.4650 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kimberly L Stachenfeld, Matthew M Botvinick, Samuel J Gershman |
| Abstract |
A cognitive map has long been the dominant metaphor for hippocampal function, embracing the idea that place cells encode a geometric representation of space. However, evidence for predictive coding, reward sensitivity and policy dependence in place cells suggests that the representation is not purely spatial. We approach this puzzle from a reinforcement learning perspective: what kind of spatial representation is most useful for maximizing future reward? We show that the answer takes the form of a predictive representation. This representation captures many aspects of place cell responses that fall outside the traditional view of a cognitive map. Furthermore, we argue that entorhinal grid cells encode a low-dimensionality basis set for the predictive representation, useful for suppressing noise in predictions and extracting multiscale structure for hierarchical planning. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 252 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 57 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 20 | 8% |
| Japan | 14 | 6% |
| Germany | 7 | 3% |
| Spain | 7 | 3% |
| India | 6 | 2% |
| Australia | 5 | 2% |
| Canada | 5 | 2% |
| France | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 36 | 14% |
| Unknown | 90 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 167 | 66% |
| Scientists | 70 | 28% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,637 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1629 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 440 | 27% |
| Researcher | 267 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 201 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 185 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 77 | 5% |
| Other | 199 | 12% |
| Unknown | 268 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 477 | 29% |
| Computer Science | 203 | 12% |
| Psychology | 198 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 170 | 10% |
| Engineering | 87 | 5% |
| Other | 170 | 10% |
| Unknown | 332 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 176. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#233,705
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Nature Neuroscience
#393
of 5,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,845
of 332,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Neuroscience
#10
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 58.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 332,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.