Defining a boundary in goal localization: Infinite number of points or extended surfaces.

Four experiments examined the roles of extended surfaces and the number of points in the boundary superiority effect in goal localization. Participants learned the locations of 4 objects in the presence of a boundary, landmarks, or both in an immersive virtual environment by reproducing the locations with feedback. Participants then localized the objects in the presence of either the boundary or the landmarks during testing without feedback. The results showed that when both 1 landmark and a circular boundary were presented during learning, localization error during testing increased significantly when only the landmark was presented during testing, whereas localization error did not increase when only the boundary was presented during testing, thus demonstrating a boundary superiority effect. This boundary superiority effect was not observed when 36 landmarks forming a circle and a circular boundary were presented during learning. The landmark superiority effect was observed when 36 landmarks, forming a circular shape, and 1/36th part of the circular boundary were presented during learning. Furthermore, when a varied number of landmarks were presented with a circular boundary during learning, the localization error when the boundary was removed during testing was negatively correlated with the number of the landmarks. These results indicate that the superiority of a circular boundary to a landmark might be due to the larger number of points in the circular boundary but not due to the extended surface of the circular boundary.

[1]  P. Wilson,et al.  Blocking of spatial learning between enclosure geometry and a local landmark. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Paul N Wilson,et al.  Enclosure shape influences cue competition effects and goal location learning , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  N. Burgess,et al.  Geometric determinants of human spatial memory , 2004, Cognition.

[4]  K. Jeffery.  Self-localization and the entorhinal–hippocampal system , 2007, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[5]  E. Spelke,et al.  Children's use of geometry and landmarks to reorient in an open space , 2001, Cognition.

[6]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Reorientation and Landmark-Guided Search by Young Children , 2006, Psychological science.

[7]  E. Tolman.  Cognitive maps in rats and men. , 1948, Psychological review.

[8]  Caroline Murphy,et al.  Use of geometry for spatial reorientation in children applies only to symmetric spaces. , 2010, Developmental science.

[9]  R. J. McDonald,et al.  Multiple Parallel Memory Systems in the Brain of the Rat , 2002, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory.

[10]  Christian F. Doeller,et al.  Establishing the Boundaries: The Hippocampal Contribution to Imagining Scenes , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Stuart P. Wilson,et al.  Blocking of goal-location learning based on shape. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[12]  R. Passingham.  The hippocampus as a cognitive map J. O'Keefe & L. Nadel, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1978). 570 pp., £25.00 , 1979, Neuroscience.

[13]  A. Lew.  Looking beyond the boundaries: time to put landmarks back on the cognitive map? , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  R. J. McDonald,et al.  Parallel information processing in the water maze: evidence for independent memory systems involving dorsal striatum and hippocampus. , 1994, Behavioral and neural biology.

[15]  J. O’Keefe,et al.  Geometric determinants of the place fields of hippocampal neurons , 1996, Nature.

[16]  R. Muller,et al.  Failure of Centrally Placed Objects to Control the Firing Fields of Hippocampal Place Cells , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[17]  K. Jeffery,et al.  The Boundary Vector Cell Model of Place Cell Firing and Spatial Memory , 2006, Reviews in the neurosciences.

[18]  Nora S Newcombe,et al.  Reorienting When Cues Conflict , 2008, Psychological science.

[19]  Christian F. Doeller,et al.  Parallel striatal and hippocampal systems for landmarks and boundaries in spatial memory , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  J. O’Keefe,et al.  Modeling place fields in terms of the cortical inputs to the hippocampus , 2000, Hippocampus.

[21]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  The shape of human navigation: How environmental geometry is used in maintenance of spatial orientation , 2008, Cognition.

[22]  N. Burgess.  Spatial Cognition and the Brain , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Christian F. Doeller,et al.  The role of landmarks and boundaries in the development of spatial memory. , 2009, Developmental science.

[24]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  Individual differences in using geometric and featural cues to maintain spatial orientation: Cue quantity and cue ambiguity are more important than cue type , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[25]  Neil Burgess,et al.  Distinct error-correcting and incidental learning of location relative to landmarks and boundaries , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.