Individual differences in using geometric and featural cues to maintain spatial orientation: Cue quantity and cue ambiguity are more important than cue type

Two experiments explored the role of environmental cues in maintaining spatial orientation (sense of selflocation and direction) during locomotion. Of particular interest was the importance of geometric cues (provided by environmental surfaces) and featural cues (nongeometric properties provided by striped walls) in maintaining spatial orientation. Participants performed a spatial updating task within virtual environments containing geometric or featural cues that were ambiguous or unambiguous indicators of self-location and direction. Cue type (geometric or featural) did not affect performance, but the number and ambiguity of environmental cues did. Gender differences, interpreted as a proxy for individual differences in spatial ability and/or experience, highlight the interaction between cue quantity and ambiguity. When environmental cues were ambiguous, men stayed oriented with either one or two cues, whereas women stayed oriented only with two. When environmental cues were unambiguous, women stayed oriented with one cue.

[1]  Horst Mittelstaedt,et al.  Analytical Cybernetics of Spider Navigation , 1985 .

[2]  M. Linn,et al.  Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. , 1985, Child development.

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

[4]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Acquisition of route and survey knowledge in the absence of vision. , 1990, Journal of motor behavior.

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

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

[7]  S. Huettel,et al.  Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. , 1998, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[9]  Anthony E. Richardson,et al.  Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. , 2002 .

[10]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. , 2003 .

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

[12]  Anthony E. Richardson,et al.  Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning , 2006 .

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

[14]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  Sensorimotor alignment effects in the learning environment and in novel environments. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Jonathan W. Kelly,et al.  Spatial memories of virtual environments: How egocentric experience, intrinsic structure, and extrinsic structure interact , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[18]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Durable and generalized effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: gender differences in growth patterns , 2008 .

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