Other analyses also showed that within good navigators there was significantly better decoding of permanence in RSC compared with PHC (t15 = 1.82, p = .04), while for poor navigators there was no such regional difference (t15 = .045, p = .33; Fig. 4). We performed similar comparisons between good and poor navigators for size and visual salience. Mean classifier values: for size – RSC: good mean 49.3% SD 4.9; poor mean 49.8% SD 6.3; PHC: good mean 47.8% SD 3.4; poor mean 47.0% SD 2.6, and for visual salience – RSC: good mean 49.7% SD 4.5; poor mean 47.9% SD 4.5; PHC: good mean 48.7% SD 3.1; poor mean 47.7% SD

3.9. There were no differences between the two groups for either feature in RSC or PHC (all t ≤ 1.14, p > .26) or within each group (all t ≤ 1.92; p > .08). In a set of learn more control analyses, we also compared males and females for permanence, size and visual salience, in both RSC and PHC, but found no significant differences based upon sex. To summarise, there were no demographic,

cognitive or structural brain differences between the good and poor navigators. Neither were there any differences in decodable information in RSC and PHC about the size or visual salience of items in view. Furthermore, there was no difference in the ability to predict whether a majority or minority of viewed items were permanent based upon patterns of activity across voxels in PHC. The only difference between the two groups concerned the accuracy with which it was possible to predict whether stimuli containing signaling pathway a majority or minority of permanent items were in view, with good navigators having significantly more information about the number of permanent items in view in their

RSC. In a previous fMRI study, we found that the RSC responded in a highly selective manner to only the most permanent items when stimuli were presented singly (Auger et al., CYTH4 2012). Here we found that in a situation that was more akin to real life, with multiple items in view, the RSC coded for the specific number of permanent items contained in a visual array. Moreover, this effect was selective, and was not apparent for other item features such as size and visual salience. This detailed tracking of the amount of permanent items in view was echoed in the PHC, although the two brain structures diverged when participants were divided into good and poor navigators. There was no difference in the responsivity of the PHC between the two groups, while significantly better decoding of the number of permanent items in view was possible from patterns of activity in the RSC of good compared to poor navigators. Within good navigators, the RSC also facilitated significantly better prediction of landmark permanence than the PHC.