Encoding of variability of landmark-based spatial information

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.

[1]  V. D. Chamizo,et al.  Blocking in the spatial domain. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[2]  S. Shettleworth,et al.  Learning about Environmental Geometry: an Associative Model , 2022 .

[3]  Michael Brown,et al.  Facilitation of learning spatial relations among locations by visual cues: Implications for theoretical accounts of spatial learning , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  Ken Cheng,et al.  Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  T. Zentall,et al.  Formation of a Simple Cognitive Map by Rats , 2006 .

[6]  Andrew P. Duchon,et al.  Do Humans Integrate Routes Into a Cognitive Map? Map- Versus Landmark-Based Navigation of Novel Shortcuts , 2005 .

[7]  Hanspeter A. Mallot,et al.  The Role of Global and Local Landmarks in Virtual Environment Navigation , 2000, Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ..

[8]  Peter M. Jones,et al.  Potentiation, overshadowing, and blocking of spatial learning based on the shape of the environment. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[9]  Sarah S. Chance,et al.  Spatial Updating of Self-Position and Orientation During Real, Imagined, and Virtual Locomotion , 1998 .

[10]  V. D. Chamizo.  Acquisition of Knowledge about Spatial Location: Assessing the Generality of the Mechanism of Learning , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[11]  J. Spencer,et al.  The Emerging Spatial Mind , 2007 .

[12]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Spatial Memory of Real Environments, Virtual Environments, and Maps , 2004 .

[13]  Bradley R. Sturz,et al.  Learning of absolute and relative distance and direction from discrete visual landmarks by pigeons (Columba livia). , 2009, Journal of comparative psychology.

[14]  M. Mehta.  Human spatial memory , 2010 .

[15]  Jennifer E Sutton.  Multiple-landmark piloting in pigeons (Columba livia): landmark configuration as a discriminative cue. , 2002, Journal of comparative psychology.

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

[17]  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.

[18]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Conditioning from an information processing perspective , 2003, Behavioural Processes.

[19]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  1 Explaining the Development of Spatial Reorientation : Modularity-Plus-Language Versus the Emergence of Adaptive Combination , 2007 .

[20]  T. Bayes.  An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances , 2003 .

[21]  J. Rieser,et al.  Bayesian integration of spatial information. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  S. Healy.  Spatial representation in animals. , 1998 .

[23]  Jeffrey S. Katz,et al.  Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[24]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Comparative cognition : experimental explorations of animal intelligence , 2009 .

[25]  A. A. Artigas,et al.  Human overshadowing in a virtual pool: Simple guidance is a good competitor against locale learning , 2003 .

[26]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Spatial navigation: Spatial learning in real and virtual environments , 2006 .

[27]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Explaining the Development of Spatial Reorientation , 2007 .

[28]  A comparative study of geometric rule learning by nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), pigeons (Columba livia), and jackdaws (Corvus monedula). , 2002 .

[29]  Alexandre Pouget,et al.  Bayesian multisensory integration and cross-modal spatial links , 2004, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[30]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[31]  N. Burgess,et al.  Spatial memory: how egocentric and allocentric combine , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans: generality across real and virtual environments , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[33]  Laurie L Bloomfield,et al.  Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees: features overshadow geometry , 2005, Biology Letters.

[34]  Noam Miller,et al.  Modeling the effects of enclosure size on geometry learning , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[35]  J. Pearce,et al.  Spatial learning based on the shape of the environment is influenced by properties of the objects forming the shape. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[36]  Alan C. Kamil,et al.  Geometric rule learning by Clark's nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). , 2000 .

[37]  Hanspeter A. Mallot,et al.  Visual homing in the absence of feature-based landmark information , 2008, Cognition.

[38]  Neil Burgess,et al.  Studies of the neural basis of human navigation and memory , 2003 .

[39]  R. Rescorla.  Pavlovian conditioning. It's not what you think it is. , 1988, The American psychologist.

[40]  P A Hancock,et al.  The perception of spatial layout in real and virtual worlds. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[41]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Encoding of relative enclosure size in a dynamic three-dimensional virtual environment by humans , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[42]  B. Sturz,et al.  Reorienting when cues conflict: A role for information content in spatial learning? , 2010, Behavioural Processes.

[43]  K. Cheng.  A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation , 1986, Cognition.

[44]  Michael R. W. Dawson,et al.  Using perceptrons to explore the reorientation task , 2010, Cognition.

[45]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Computational Versus Associative Models of Simple Conditioning , 2001 .

[46]  F. Gaunet,et al.  Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition. , 1998 .

[47]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Geometry, features and orientation in vertebrate animals : a pictorial review , 2006 .

[48]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? squaring theory and evidence , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[49]  C. Gallistel.  The organization of learning , 1990 .

[50]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Facilitation of learning spatial relations among locations by visual cues: generality across spatial configurations , 2010, Animal Cognition.

[51]  Weimin Mou,et al.  Frames of reference in mobile augmented reality displays. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[52]  Michela Ponticorvo,et al.  Encoding geometric and non-geometric information: a study with evolved agents , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[53]  Marcia L. Spetch,et al.  Blocking in landmark-based search in honeybees , 2001 .

[54]  J. Loomis,et al.  Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[55]  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.