Reorientation in a two-dimensional environment: I. Do adults encode the featural and geometric properties of a two-dimensional schematic of a room?

Adults searched for a goal in images of a rectangular environment. The goal's position was constant relative to featural and geometric cues, but the absolute position changed across trials. Participants easily learned to use the featural cues to find the target, but learning to use only geometric information was difficult. Transformation tests revealed that participants used the color and shape of distinct features to encode the goal's position. When the features at the correct and geometrically equivalent corners were removed, participants could use distant features to locate the goal. Accuracy remained above chance when a single distant feature was present, but the feature farthest from the goal yielded lower accuracy than one closer. Participants trained with features spontaneously encoded the geometric information. However, this representation did not withstand orientation transformations.

[1]  M L Spetch,et al.  Overshadowing in landmark learning: touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[3]  C J Whitaker,et al.  Use of cue configuration geometry for spatial orientation in human infants (Homo sapiens). , 2001, Journal of comparative psychology.

[4]  A. Friedman,et al.  The importance of being upright: Use of environmental and viewer-centered reference frames in shape discriminations of novel three-dimensional objects , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[5]  G. Vallortigara,et al.  Searching for the center: spatial cognition in the domestic chick (Gallus gallus). , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[6]  Lynn Nadel,et al.  Children's Use of Landmarks: Implications for Modularity Theory , 2002, Psychological science.

[7]  S. Gouteux,et al.  Rhesus monkeys use geometric and non geometric during a reorientation task , 2001 .

[8]  M Zanforlin,et al.  Geometric modules in animals' spatial representations: a test with chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus). , 1990, Journal of comparative psychology.

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

[10]  E. Spelke,et al.  Human Spatial Representation: Insights from Animals , 2002 .

[11]  Catherine Thinus-Blanc,et al.  Rhesus monkeys use geometric and nongeometric information during a reorientation task , 2001 .

[12]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Heading in the rat: Determination by environmental shape , 1988 .

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

[14]  Marc D. Hauser,et al.  The role of landmarks in cotton-top tamarin spatial foraging: evidence for geometric and non-geometric features , 2001, Animal Cognition.

[15]  L Hermer,et al.  Internally coherent spatial memories in a mammal , 1997, Neuroreport.

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

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

[18]  Debbie M. Kelly,et al.  Pigeons' (Columba livia) encoding of geometric and featural properties of a spatial environment. , 1998 .

[19]  G. Vallortigara,et al.  Young chickens learn to localize the centre of a spatial environment , 1997, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[20]  J. Pearce,et al.  Absence of Overshadowing and Blocking between Landmarks and the Geometric Cues Provided by the Shape of a Test Arena , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. B, Comparative and physiological psychology.

[21]  Simon Benhamou,et al.  LANDMARK USE BY NAVIGATING RATS (RATTUS NORVEGICUS) : CONTRASTING GEOMETRIC AND FEATURAL INFORMATION , 1998 .

[22]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  Toddlers' use of metric information and landmarks to reorient. , 2001, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[23]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Sources of Flexibility in Human Cognition: Dual-Task Studies of Space and Language , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  Sharon R. Doerkson,et al.  Use of Landmark Configuration in Pigeons and Humans : II . Generality Across Search Tasks , 2001 .

[25]  M L Spetch,et al.  Learning the configuration of a landmark array: I. Touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. , 1996, Journal of comparative psychology.

[26]  L. Hermer-Vazquez,et al.  Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: the case of two spatial memory tasks , 2001, Cognition.

[27]  M. Spetch,et al.  Searching in the center: pigeons (Columba livid) encode relative distance from walls of an enclosure. , 2004, Journal of comparative psychology.

[28]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Modularity and spatial reorientation in a simple mind: encoding of geometric and nongeometric properties of a spatial environment by fish , 2002, Cognition.

[29]  E. Spelke,et al.  Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation , 1996, Cognition.

[30]  Rüdiger Wehner,et al.  Polarization vision in bees , 1986, Nature.

[31]  M L Spetch,et al.  Pigeons encode relative geometry. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[32]  S. Gouteuxa,et al.  Reorientation in a small-scale environment by 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children , 2001 .

[33]  B. A. Cartwright,et al.  How honey bees use landmarks to guide their return to a food source , 1982, Nature.