Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Previous research (Zhou, Mou, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 42(8):1316–1323, 2016) showed that learning individual locations relative to a single landmark, compared to learning relative to a boundary, led to more accurate inferences of inter-object spatial relations (cognitive mapping of multiple locations). Following our past findings, the current study investigated whether the larger number of reference points provided by a homogeneous circular boundary, as well as less accessible knowledge of direct spatial relations among the multiple reference points, would lead to less effective cognitive mapping relative to the boundary. Accordingly, we manipulated (a) the number of primary reference points (one segment drawn from a circular boundary, four such segments, vs. the complete boundary) available when participants were localizing four objects sequentially (Experiment 1) and (b) the extendedness of each of the four segments (Experiment 2). The results showed that cognitive mapping was the least accurate in the whole boundary condition. However, expanding each of the four segments did not affect the accuracy of cognitive mapping until the four were connected to form a continuous boundary. These findings indicate that when encoding locations relative to a homogeneous boundary, participants segmented the boundary into differentiated pieces and subsequently chose the most informative local part (i.e., the segment closest in distance to one location) as the primary reference point for a particular location. During this process, direct spatial relations among the reference points were likely not attended to. These findings suggest that people might encode and represent bounded space in a fragmented fashion when localizing within a homogeneous boundary.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Aguire, G. K., Detre, J. A., Alsop, D. C., & D’Esposito, M. (1996). The parahippocampus subserves topographical learning in man. Cerebral Cotex, 6, 823–829. CrossRef
Anderson, M. C. (2003). Rethinking interference theory: Executive control and the mechanisms of forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 415–445. CrossRef
Bennett, A. T. D. (1996). Do animal have cognitive maps. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 219–224. PubMed
Cheng, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Squaring theory and evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 1–23. CrossRef
Committeri, G., Galati, G., Paradis, A. L., Pizzamiglio, L., Berthoz, A., & LeBihan, D. (2004). Reference frames for spatial cognition: different brain areas are involved in viewer-, object-, and landmark-centered judgments about object location. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1517–1535. CrossRefPubMed
Levine, M., Jankovic, I. N., & Palij, M. (1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology: General, 111(2), 157–175. CrossRef
Maguire, E. A., Frith, C. D., Burgess, N., Donnett, J. G., & O’Keefe, J. (1998a). Knowing where things are: parahippocampal involvement in encoding object locations in virtual large-scale space. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(1), 61–76.
Mou, W., & Zhou, R. (2013). Defining a Boundary in Goal Localization: Infinite Number of Points or Extended Surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 39(4), 1115–1127.
Nadel, L. (2013). Cognitive maps. In D. Waller & L. Nadel (Eds.), Handbook of spatial cognition (pp. 155–171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. CrossRef
O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press.
Zhou, R., & Mou, W. (2016). Superior cognitive mapping through single landmark-related learning than through boundary-related learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 42(8), 1316–1323.
- The limits of boundaries: unpacking localization and cognitive mapping relative to a boundary
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg