Acquisition of landmark, route, and survey knowledge in a wayfinding task: in stages or in parallel?

According to an influential concept, humans acquire spatial knowledge about their environment in three distinct stages: landmark knowledge is acquired first, then route knowledge, and finally survey knowledge. The stage concept has been challenged by studies which observed that in a wayfinding paradigm, route, and survey knowledge emerge at the same time and; therefore, were seemingly acquired in parallel. However, this experimental evidence is not conclusive because the above studies suffered from a ceiling effect. The present study was designed to overcome the ceiling effect by increasing the complexity of the wayfinding task. We asked 60 young participants to find their way through an urban environment rendered in virtual reality, and assessed their landmark, route, and survey knowledge after each of ten trials. We found that all three types of knowledge gradually increased from the first to the last trial. We further found that correlations between the three types of knowledge increased from trial to trial. This outcome disagrees profoundly with the stage concept, but is compatible with the parallel concept. Specifically, it is in accordance with the view that landmark, route, and survey knowledge are acquired by multiple overlapping and interacting processes: those processes may start out more or less independently in the first trial but, due to common constraints or synergies, may gradually increase their cooperation during subsequent trials.

[1]  A. Siegel,et al.  The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. , 1975, Advances in child development and behavior.

[2]  Steven M. Weisberg,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition Variations in Cognitive Maps : Understanding Individual Differences in Navigation , 2013 .

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

[4]  C. Bundesen.  The Broadbent Lecture at the XVth Congress of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Marseilles, France, 2007 , 2009 .

[5]  Christian F. Doeller,et al.  Lateralized human hippocampal activity predicts navigation based on sequence or place memory , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  F. Tonucci,et al.  Why do we need children's participation? The importance of children's participation in changing the city , 2001 .

[7]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  What determines our navigational abilities? , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[8]  D. Appleyard.  Styles and Methods of Structuring a City , 1970 .

[9]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children , 1994, Nature.

[10]  Arne D. Ekstrom,et al.  Different “routes” to a cognitive map: dissociable forms of spatial knowledge derived from route and cartographic map learning , 2014, Memory & Cognition.

[11]  M. Heil,et al.  Spatial knowledge acquisition in younger and elderly adults: a study in a virtual environment. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[12]  Petra Jansen,et al.  Empirical evaluation of virtual environment technology as an experimental tool in developmental spatial cognition research , 2009 .

[13]  D. R. Montello,et al.  Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Elizabeth R. Chrastil,et al.  Neural evidence supports a novel framework for spatial navigation , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[15]  P. Jansen-Osmann,et al.  The representation of landmarks and routes in children and adults: A study in a virtual environment , 2004 .

[16]  Maria Kozhevnikov,et al.  Relating allocentric and egocentric survey-based representations to the self-reported use of a navigation strategy of egocentric spatial updating , 2016 .

[17]  Kevin Lynch,et al.  The Image of the City , 1960 .

[18]  A. Alexander Beaujean,et al.  Latent Variable Models , 2016 .

[19]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Modeling Spatial Knowledge , 1978, IJCAI.

[20]  Petra Jansen-Osmann,et al.  Is Route Learning More Than Serial Learning? , 2008, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[21]  Paul N. Wilson,et al.  The effect of landmarks on route-learning in a computer-simulated environment , 1994 .

[22]  E. H. Cornell,et al.  Children's wayfinding: Response to instructions to use environmental landmarks. , 1989 .

[23]  Bernard N'Kaoua,et al.  Executive and memory correlates of age-related differences in wayfinding performances using a virtual reality application , 2013, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[24]  D. R. Montello.  A New Framework for Understanding the Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge in Large-Scale Environments , 1998 .

[25]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  L. Nadel,et al.  The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map , 1978 .

[27]  Tommy Gärling,et al.  Memory for the spatial layout of the everyday physical environment: Factors affecting rate of acquisition , 1981 .

[28]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Knowing Where Things Are in the Second Year of Life: Implications for Hippocampal Development , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  Petra Jansen-Osmann,et al.  Wayfinding behavior and spatial knowledge of adults and children in a virtual environment: The role of landmarks. , 2006, Experimental psychology.

[30]  H. Taylor,et al.  Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspective , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[31]  J. G. Bremner,et al.  The development of relational landmark use in six- to twelve-month-old infants in a spatial orientation task. , 2000, Child development.