Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Recent evidence suggests humans optimally weight visual and haptic information (i.e., in inverse proportion to their variances). A more recent proposal is that spatial information (i.e., distance and direction) may also adhere to Bayesian principles and be weighted in an optimal fashion. A fundamental assumption of this proposal is that participants encode the variability of spatial information. In a three-dimensional virtual-environment open-field search task, we provide evidence that participants encoded the variability of landmark-based spatial information. Specifically, participants searched for a hidden goal location in a 5 × 5 matrix of raised bins. Participants experienced five training phases in which they searched for a hidden goal that maintained a unique spatial relationship to each of four distinct landmarks. Each landmark was assigned an a priori value of locational uncertainty such that each varied in its ability to predict a goal (i.e., varied in number of potential goal locations). Following training, participants experienced conflict trials in which two distinct landmarks were presented simultaneously. Participants preferentially responded to the landmark with the lower uncertainty value (i.e., smaller number of potential goal locations). Results provide empirical evidence for the encoding of variability of landmark-based spatial information and have implications for theoretical accounts of spatial learning.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Bayes, T. (1763). Essays towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 53, 370–418. CrossRef
Chamizo, V. D. (2003). Acquisition of knowledge about spatial location: Assessing the generality of the mechanism of learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 102–113. CrossRef
Chamizo, V. D., Aznar-Casanova, J. A., & Artigas, A. A. (2003). Human overshadowing in a virtual pool: Simple guidance is a good competitor against local learning. Learning and Motivation, 34, 262–281. CrossRef
Cheng, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1–23.
Cheng, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2006). Geometry, features, and orientation in vertebrate animals: A pictorial review. In M. F. Brown & R. G. Cook (Eds.), Animal spatial cognition: Comparative, neural, and computational approaches. Available at http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/asc/cheng/.
Cheng, K., & Spetch, M. L. (2001). Blocking in landmark-based search in honeybees. Animal Learning & Behavior, 29, 1–9.
Deneve, S., & Pouget, A. (2004). Bayesian multisensory integration and cross-modal spatial links. Journal of Physiology Paris, 98, 249–258. CrossRef
Doeller, C. F., & Burgess, N. (2008). Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning location relative to landmarks and boundaries. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Vol.105, 5909–5914).
Doeller, C. F., King, J. A., & Burgess, N. (2008). Parallel striatal and hippocampal systems for landmarks and boundaries in spatial memory. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (Vol. 105, 5915–5920).
Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gallistel, C. R., & Gibbon, J. (2001). Computational versus associative models of simple conditioning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 146–150. CrossRef
Hartley, T., King, J. A., & Burgess, N. (2003). Studies of the neural basis of human navigation and memory. In K. Jeffery (Ed.), The neurobiology of spatial behavior (pp. 144–164). New York: Oxford University Press.
Healy, S. (1998). Spatial representation in animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, D. M., & Gibson, B. M. (2007). Spatial navigation: Spatial learning in real and virtual environments. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 2, 111–124.
Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., Beall, A. C., Chance, S. S., & Golledge, R. G. (1998). Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9, 293–298. CrossRef
Loomis, J. M., Blascovich, J. J., & Beall, A. C. (1999). Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 31, 557–564.
Montello, D. R., Hegarty, M., Richardson, A. E., & Waller, D. (2004). Spatial memory of real environments, virtual environments, and maps. In G. L. Allen (Ed.), Human spatial memory (pp. 251–285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newcombe, N. S., & Ratliff, K. R. (2007). Explaining the development of spatial reorientation: Modularity-plus-language versus the emergence of adaptive combination. In J. Plumert & J. Spencer (Eds.), The emerging spatial mind (pp. 53–76). New York: Oxford.
Péruch, P., & Gaunet, F. (1998). Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition. Current Psychology of Cognition, 17, 881–899.
Singer, R. A., Abroms, B. D., & Zentall, T. R. (2006). Formation of simple cognitive maps in rats. International Journal of Comparative Cognition, 19, 417–425.
Spetch, M. L., & Kelly, D. M. (2006). Comparative spatial cognition: Processes in landmark- and surface-based place finding. In E. A. Wasserman & T. R. Zentall (Eds.), Comparative cognition: Experimental explorations of animal intelligence (pp. 210–228). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Steck, S. D., & Mallot, H. A. (2000). The role of global and local landmarks in virtual environment navigation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9, 69–83. CrossRef
Sturz, B. R., Brown, M. F., & Kelly, D. M. (2009b). Facilitation of learning spatial relations among locations by visual cues: Implications for theoretical accounts of spatial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 306–312. CrossRef
Sturz, B. R., Kelly, D. M., & Brown, M. F. (2009c). Facilitation of learning spatial relations among locations by visual cues: Generality across spatial configurations. Animal Cognition. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0283-3.
- Encoding of variability of landmark-based spatial information
Bradley R. Sturz
Kent D. Bodily