Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Animal Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A dynamic 3-D virtual environment was constructed for humans as an open-field analogue of Blaisdell and Cook's (2005) pigeon foraging task to determine if humans, like pigeons, were capable of integrating separate spatial maps. Participants used keyboard keys and a mouse to search for a hidden goal in a 4×4 grid of raised cups. During Phase 1 training, a goal was consistently located between two landmarks (Map 1: blue T and red L). During Phase 2 training, a goal was consistently located down and left of a single landmark (Map 2: blue T). Transfer trials were then conducted in which participants were required to make choices in the presence of the red L alone. Cup choices during transfer assessed participants’ strategies: association (from Map 1), generalization (from Map 2), or integration (combining Map 1 and 2). During transfer, cup choices increased to a location which suggested an integration strategy and was consistent with results obtained with pigeons. However, additional analyses of the human data suggested participants initially used a generalization strategy followed by a progressive shift in search behavior away from the red L. This shift in search behavior during transfer was responsible for the changes in cup choices across transfer trials and was confirmed by a control condition. These new analyses offer an alternative explanation to the spatial integration account proposed for pigeons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur EJ, Hancock PA, Chrylser ST (1997) The perception of spatial layout in real and virtual worlds. Ergonomics 40:69–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AT (1993) Spatial memory in a food storing corvid: I. Near tall landmarks are primarily used. J Comp Physiol A 173:193–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett AT (1996) Do animals have cognitive maps? J Exp Biol 199:219–224

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blaisdell AP, Cook RG (2005) Integration of spatial maps in pigeons. Anim Cogn 8:7–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chamizo VD, Aznar-Casanova JA, Artigas AA (2003) Human overshadowing in a virtual pool: simple guidance is a good competitor against local learning. Learn Motiv 34:262–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapuis N, Varlet C (1987) Shortcuts by dogs in natural surroundings. Q J Exp Psychol 39B:49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K (1988) Some psychophysics of the pigeon's use of landmarks. J Comp Physiol A 159:69–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K (1989) The vector sum model of pigeon landmark use. J Exp Psychol Anim B 15:366–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K (1995) Landmark-based spatial memory in the pigeon. In: Medin D (ed), The psychology of learning and motivation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K, Collett TS, Pickhard A, Wehner R (1987) The use of visual landmarks by honeybees: bees weight landmarks according to their distance from the goal. J Comp Physiol A 161:469–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K, Spetch ML (1995) Stimulus control in the use of landmarks by pigeons in a touch-screen task. J Exp Anal Behav 63:187–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K, Spetch ML (1998) Mechanisms of landmark use in mammals and birds. In: Healy S (ed) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng K, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Bingman VP (2006) Small-scale spatial cognition in pigeons. Behav Process 72:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramer AE, Gallistel CR (1997) Vervet monkeys as traveling salesmen. Nature 387:464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer FC (1991) Bees acquire route-based memories but not cognitive maps in a familiar landscape. Anim Behav 41:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo P, Warren WH, Duchon A, Tarr MJ (2005) Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. J Exp Psychol Learn 31:195–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallistell CR (1990) The organization of learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallistell CR, Cramer AE (1996) Computations on metric maps in mammals: getting oriented and choosing a multi-destination route. J Exp Biol 199:211–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson BM (2001) Cognitive maps not used by humans during a dynamic navigational task. J Comp Psychol 115:397–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson BM, Kamil AC (2001) Tests for cognitive mapping in Clark's nutcrackers. J Comp Psychol 115:403–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gould JL (1986) The locale map of honey bees: do insects have cognitive maps? Science 232:861–863

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley T, King JA, Burgess N (2003) Studies of the neural basis of human navigation and memory. In: Jeffery K (ed), The neurobiology of spatial behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 144–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs WJ, Laurance HE, Thomas KGF (1997) Place learning in virtual space I: acquisition, overshadowing, and transfer. Learn Motiv 28:521–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith JR, McVety KM (1988) Latent place learning in a novel environment and the influence of prior training in rats. Psychobiology 16:146–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly DM, Bischof WF (2005) Reorienting in images of a three-dimensional environment. J Exp Psychol Human 31:1391–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly DM, Spetch ML (2004a) Reorientation in a two-dimensional environment: I. Do adults encode the featural and geometric properties of a two-dimensional schematic of a room? J Comp Psychol 118:82–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly DM, Spetch ML (2004b) Reorientation in a two-dimensional environment: II. Do pigeons encode the featural and geometric properties of a two-dimensional schematic of a room? J Comp Psychol 118:384–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechelt DP, Spetch ML (1997) Pigeons’ use of landmarks for spatial search in a laboratory arena and in digitized images of the arena. Learn Motiv 28:424–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard B, McNaughton BL (1990) Spatial representation in the rat: conceptual, behavioral, and neurophysiological perspectives. In: Kesner RP, Olton DS (eds) Neurobiology of comparative cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 363–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis JM, Blascovich JJ, Beall AC (1999) Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav Res Meth Ins C 31:557–564

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald SE, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Cheng K (2004) Strategies in landmark use by children, adults, and marmoset monkeys. Learn Motiv 35:322–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel EW (1973) Chimpanzee spatial memory organization. Science 182:943–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menzel EW (1978) Cognitive mapping in chimpanzees. In: Hulse SH, Fowler H, Honig WK (eds) Cognitive processes in animal behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Montello DR, Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Waller D (2004) Spatial memory of real environments, virtual environments, and maps. In: Allen GL (ed) Human spatial memory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 251–285

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Olton DS (1979). Mazes, maps, and memory. Am Psychol 34:583–596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olton DS, Collision C, Werz MA (1977a) Spatial memory and radial arm maze performance of rats. Learn Motiv 8:289–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olton DS, Samuelson RJ (1976) Remembrance of places passed: spatial memory in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim B 2:97–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olton DS, Walker JA, Gage FH, Johnson CT (1977b) Choice behavior of rats searching for food. Learn Motiv 8:315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Péruch P, Gaunet F (1998) Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition. Cah Psychol Cogn 17:881–899

    Google Scholar 

  • Plowright CMS, Shettleworth SJ (1990) The role of shifting in choice behavior of pigeons on a two-armed bandit. Behav Process 21:157–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real LA (1991) Animal choice behavior and the evolution of cognitive architecture. Science 253:980–986

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigo T, Chamizo VD, McLaren IP, Mackintosh NJ (1997) Blocking in the spatial domain. J Exp Psychol Anim B 23:110–118

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth SJ (1988) Foraging as operant behavior and operant behavior as foraging: what have we learned? In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory, vol. 22. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 1–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML (1995) Overshadowing in landmark learning: touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Exp Psychol Anim B 21:166–181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE (1996) Learning the configurations of a landmark array: I. Touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Comp Psychol 110:55–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE, Linkenhoker BA, Kelly DM, Dooerkson S (1997) Learning the configurations of a landmark array in pigeons and humans: II. Generality across search tasks. J Comp Psychol 111:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Cheng K, Mondloch MV (1992) Landmark use by pigeons in a touch-screen spatial search task. Anim Learn Behav 20:281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Lechelt DP (1998) Encoding of spatial information in images of an outdoor scene by pigeons and humans. Anim Learn Behav 26:85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Mondloch MV (1993) Control of pigeons’ spatial search by graphic landmarks in a touch-screen task. J Exp Psychol Anim B 19:353–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetch ML, Wilkie DM (1994) Pigeons’ use of landmarks presented in digitized images. Learn Motiv 25:245–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanney KM (ed) (2002) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Thinus-Blanc C (1988) Animal spatial cognition. In: Weiskrantz L (ed) Thought without language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 371–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman EC (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55:189–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waller D, Loomis JM, Golledge RG, Beall AC (2000) Place learning in humans: the role of distance and direction information. Spat Cogn Comput 2:333–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang RF, Spelke ES (2002) Human spatial representation: insights from animals. Trends Cogn Sci 6:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wehner R, Menzel R (1990) Do insects have cognitive maps? Annu Rev Neurosci 13:403–414

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wehner R, Srinivasan MV (1981) Searching behaviour of desert ants, genus Cataglyphis (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Comop Physiol A 142:315–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant NSF IBN-0316133 to Jeffrey S. Katz. This research was conducted following the relevant ethical guidelines for human research. The authors would like to thank Ken Cheng and three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. The authors would also like to thank J. Keeley and A. A. Lazarte for statistical advice and Emily Gray for information regarding the creation of the spatial distribution plots.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, 226 Thach Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Bradley R. Sturz, Kent D. Bodily & Jeffrey S. Katz

Authors
  1. Bradley R. Sturz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kent D. Bodily
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey S. Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradley R. Sturz.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sturz, B.R., Bodily, K.D. & Katz, J.S. Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans. Anim Cogn 9, 207–217 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0022-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0022-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation