Evidence Hub

Common and distinct neural trends of allocentric and egocentric spatial coding: An ALE meta-analysis

Derbie AY, Chau BKH, Wong CHY, Chen LD, Ting KH, Lam BYH, Lee TMC, Chan CCH et al.

The European journal of neuroscience, 2021

447 participants

Abstract

The uniqueness of neural processes between allocentric and egocentric spatial coding has been controversial. The distinctive paradigms used in previous studies for manipulating spatial coding could have attributed for the inconsistent results. This study was aimed to generate converging evidence from previous functional brain imaging experiments for collating neural substrates associated with these two types of spatial coding. An additional aim was to test whether test-taking processes would have influenced the results. We obtained coordinate-based functional neuroimaging data for 447 subjects and performed activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. Among the 28 experiments, the results indicate two common clusters of convergence. They were the right precuneus and the right superior frontal gyrus as parts of the parieto-frontal circuit. Between-type differences were in the parieto-occipital circuit, with allocentric showing convergence in the superior occipital gyrus (SOG) cluster compared with egocentric showing convergence in the middle occipital gyrus (MOG) cluster. Task-specific influences were only found in allocentric spatial coding. Spatial judgment-oriented tasks seem to increase the demands on manipulating spatial relationships among the visual objects, while spatial navigation tasks seem to increase the demands on maintaining object representations. Our findings address the theoretical controversies on spatial coding that both the allocentric and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 447 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free