Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction

Successful navigation requires the ability to compute one’s location and heading from incoming multisensory information. Previous work has shown that this multisensory input comes in two forms: body-based idiothetic cues, from one’s own rotations and translations, and visual allothetic cues, from the environment (usually visual landmarks). However, exactly how these two streams of information are integrated is unclear, with some models suggesting the body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues are combined, while others suggest they compete. In this paper we investigated the integration of body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues in the computation of heading using virtual reality. In our experiment, participants performed a series of body turns of up to 360 degrees in the dark with only a brief flash (300ms) of visual feedback en route. Because the environment was virtual, we had full control over the visual feedback and were able to vary the offset between this feedback and the true heading angle. By measuring the effect of the feedback offset on the angle participants turned, we were able to determine the extent to which they incorporated visual feedback as a function of the offset error. By further modeling this behavior we were able to quantify the computations people used. While there were considerable individual differences in performance on our task, with some participants mostly ignoring the visual feedback and others relying on it almost entirely, our modeling results suggest that almost all participants used the same strategy in which idiothetic and allothetic cues are combined when the mismatch between them is small, but compete when the mismatch is large. These findings suggest that participants update their estimate of heading using a hybrid strategy that mixes the combination and competition of cues. Author summary Successful navigation requires us to combine visual information about our environment with body-based cues about our own rotations and translations. In this work we investigated how these disparate sources of information work together to compute an estimate of heading. Using a novel virtual reality task we measured how humans integrate visual and body-based cues when there is mismatch between them — that is, when the estimate of heading from visual information is different from body-based cues. By building computational models of different strategies, we reveal that humans use a hybrid strategy for integrating visual and body-based cues — combining them when the mismatch between them is small and picking one or the other when the mismatch is large.

[1]  Elizabeth R. Chrastil,et al.  Executing the homebound path is a major source of error in homing by path integration. , 2020, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Arne D Ekstrom,et al.  Landmarks: A solution for spatial navigation and memory experiments in virtual reality , 2020, Behavior Research Methods.

[3]  W. Mou,et al.  Cue combination used to update the navigator's self-localization, not the home location. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Michael Mangan,et al.  A decentralised neural model explaining optimal integration of navigational strategies in insects , 2019, eLife.

[5]  Arne D. Ekstrom,et al.  A Modality-Independent Network Underlies the Retrieval of Large-Scale Spatial Environments in the Human Brain , 2019, Neuron.

[6]  Elizabeth R. Chrastil,et al.  Vision and proprioception make equal contributions to path integration in a novel homing task , 2019, Cognition.

[7]  Jan Tommy Gravdahl,et al.  Vive for Robotics: Rapid Robot Cell Calibration , 2019, 2019 7th International Conference on Control, Mechatronics and Automation (ICCMA).

[8]  Arne D. Ekstrom,et al.  Path integration in large-scale space and with novel geometries: Comparing vector addition and encoding-error models , 2019, bioRxiv.

[9]  William H Warren,et al.  Non-Euclidean navigation , 2019, Journal of Experimental Biology.

[10]  Falk Lieder,et al.  Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources , 2019, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  Robert C. Wilson,et al.  Ten simple rules for the computational modeling of behavioral data , 2019, eLife.

[12]  Kay Thurley,et al.  Time and distance estimation in children using an egocentric navigation task , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Michael Mangan,et al.  An Analysis of a Ring Attractor Model for Cue Integration , 2018, Living Machines.

[14]  Rachel N. Denison,et al.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making , 2017, bioRxiv.

[15]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  Cue combination in human spatial navigation , 2017, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  T. Regier,et al.  An adaptive cue combination model of human spatial reorientation , 2017, Cognition.

[17]  V. Jayaraman,et al.  Ring attractor dynamics in the Drosophila central brain , 2017, Science.

[18]  Elizabeth R. Chrastil,et al.  Rotational error in path integration: encoding and execution errors in angle reproduction , 2017, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Elizabeth R. Chrastil,et al.  Individual Differences in Human Path Integration Abilities Correlate with Gray Matter Volume in Retrosplenial Cortex, Hippocampus, and Medial Prefrontal Cortex , 2017, eNeuro.

[20]  Simon M Stringer,et al.  Optimal cue combination and landmark‐stability learning in the head direction system , 2016, The Journal of physiology.

[21]  Joshua I. Sanders,et al.  Signatures of a Statistical Computation in the Human Sense of Confidence , 2016, Neuron.

[22]  William H. Warren,et al.  Environmental stability modulates the role of path integration in human navigation , 2015, Cognition.

[23]  William H Warren,et al.  How You Get There From Here , 2015, Psychological science.

[24]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Rational Use of Cognitive Resources: Levels of Analysis Between the Computational and the Algorithmic , 2015, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Weimin Mou,et al.  Dissociating position and heading estimations: Rotated visual orientation cues perceived after walking reset headings but not positions , 2014, Cognition.

[26]  Timothy P. McNamara,et al.  Bayesian Cue Interaction in Human Spatial Navigation , 2014, Spatial Cognition.

[27]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  One and Done? Optimal Decisions From Very Few Samples , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  W. Ma Organizing probabilistic models of perception , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  F. Petzschner,et al.  Iterative Bayesian Estimation as an Explanation for Range and Regression Effects: A Study on Human Path Integration , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[30]  Steven A. Marchette,et al.  Cognitive Mappers to Creatures of Habit: Differential Engagement of Place and Response Learning Mechanisms Predicts Human Navigational Behavior , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  Robert C. Wilson,et al.  An Approximately Bayesian Delta-Rule Model Explains the Dynamics of Belief Updating in a Changing Environment , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  Ulrik R. Beierholm,et al.  Causal inference in perception , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Ulrik R. Beierholm,et al.  Probability Matching as a Computational Strategy Used in Perception , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[34]  William H Warren,et al.  Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  Leif H. Finkel,et al.  A Neural Implementation of the Kalman Filter , 2009, NIPS.

[36]  Douglas G. Wallace,et al.  Fractionating dead reckoning: role of the compass, odometer, logbook, and home base establishment in spatial orientation , 2008, Naturwissenschaften.

[37]  Pete R. Jones,et al.  Development of Cue Integration in Human Navigation , 2008, Current Biology.

[38]  Aizhen Yang,et al.  Relationship of semicircular canal size to vestibular-nerve afferent sensitivity in mammals. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[40]  J. Taube The head direction signal: origins and sensory-motor integration. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[41]  D. Knill Robust cue integration: a Bayesian model and evidence from cue-conflict studies with stereoscopic and figure cues to slant. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[42]  Margaret P. Munger,et al.  Representational momentum in scenes: Learning spatial layout , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[43]  Bruce L. McNaughton,et al.  Path integration and the neural basis of the 'cognitive map' , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[44]  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.

[45]  T. Hubbard Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities , 2005 .

[47]  永福 智志 The Organization of Learning , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  Jeffrey S. Taube,et al.  Head direction cells and the neural mechanisms of spatial orientation , 2005 .

[49]  Jennifer E Sutton,et al.  Multiple systems for spatial learning: dead reckoning and beacon homing in rats. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[51]  David C Knill,et al.  Mixture models and the probabilistic structure of depth cues , 2003, Vision Research.

[52]  Margaret P. Munger,et al.  Parallels between remembering and predicting an object's location , 2002 .

[53]  D Waller,et al.  Individual differences in spatial learning from computer-simulated environments. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[54]  J. Kruger,et al.  Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[55]  I. Whishaw,et al.  Piloting and dead reckoning dissociated by fimbria-fornix lesions in a rat food carrying task , 1997, Behavioural Brain Research.

[56]  K. Zhang,et al.  Representation of spatial orientation by the intrinsic dynamics of the head-direction cell ensemble: a theory , 1996, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[57]  J. Lackner,et al.  Rapid adaptation to Coriolis force perturbations of arm trajectory. , 1994, Journal of neurophysiology.

[58]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[59]  A. Etienne,et al.  The effect of a single light cue on homing behaviour of the golden hamster , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[60]  J. Freyd,et al.  A velocity effect for representational momentum , 1985 .

[61]  M. Teghtsoonian,et al.  Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[62]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. , 1971 .

[63]  Allen Newell,et al.  Elements of a theory of human problem solving. , 1958 .

[64]  S. S. Stevens On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[65]  William H Warren,et al.  Non-optimal perceptual decision in human navigation , 2018, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[66]  N. Fortin,et al.  Memory for Space, Time, and Episodes , 2017 .

[67]  Weimin Mou,et al.  Piloting Systems Reset Path Integration Systems During Position Estimation , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[69]  David Waller,et al.  Handbook of spatial cognition , 2013 .

[70]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Multistability and Perceptual Inference , 2012, Neural Computation.

[71]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[72]  Ariane S Etienne,et al.  Path integration in mammals , 2004, Hippocampus.

[73]  A. Redish Beyond the Cognitive Map: From Place Cells to Episodic Memory , 1999 .

[74]  Roberta L. Klatzky,et al.  Human navigation ability: Tests of the encoding-error model of path integration , 1999, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[75]  A. Raftery Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research , 1995 .

[76]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 , 1995 .

[77]  Gustav Theodor Fechner,et al.  Elements of psychophysics , 1966 .