» Articles » PMID: 25972823

Evidence Consistent with the Multiple-bearings Hypothesis from Human Virtual Landmark-based Navigation

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2015 May 15
PMID 25972823
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

One approach to explaining the conditions under which additional landmarks will be learned or ignored relates to the nature of the information provided by the landmarks (i.e., distance versus bearings). In the current experiment, we tested the ability of such an approach to explain the search behavior of human participants in a virtual landmark-based navigation task by manipulating whether landmarks provided stable distance, stable direction, or both stable distance and stable direction information. First, we incrementally shaped human participants' search behavior in the presence of two ambiguous landmarks. Next, participants experienced one additional landmark that disambiguated the location of the goal. Finally, we presented three additional landmarks. In a control condition, the additional landmarks maintained stable distances and bearings to the goal across trials. In a stable bearings condition, the additional landmarks varied in their distances but maintained fixed bearings to the goal across trials. In a stable distance condition, the additional landmarks varied in their bearings but maintained fixed distances to the goal across trials. Landmark stability, in particular, the stability of landmark-to-goal bearings, affected learning of the added landmarks. We interpret the results in the context of the theories of spatial learning that incorporate the nature of the information provided by landmarks.

Citing Articles

Direction and distance information in memory for locations of objects relative to landmarks and boundaries.

Galyer D, McIntire G, Dopkins S Mem Cognit. 2023; 51(6):1431-1443.

PMID: 36717482 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-023-01398-3.


Orientation in Virtual Reality Does Not Fully Measure Up to the Real-World.

Kimura K, Reichert J, Olson A, Ranjbar Pouya O, Wang X, Moussavi Z Sci Rep. 2017; 7(1):18109.

PMID: 29273759 PMC: 5741741. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-18289-8.

References
1.
Foo P, Warren W, Duchon A, Tarr M . Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005; 31(2):195-215. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.195. View

2.
Sutton J . Multiple-landmark piloting in pigeons (Columba livia): landmark configuration as a discriminative cue. J Comp Psychol. 2003; 116(4):391-403. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.116.4.391. View

3.
Jones J, Antoniadis E, Shettleworth S, Kamil A . A comparative study of geometric rule learning by nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), pigeons (Columba livia), and jackdaws (Corvus monedula). J Comp Psychol. 2003; 116(4):350-6. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.116.4.350. View

4.
Spetch M . Overshadowing in landmark learning: touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1995; 21(2):166-81. DOI: 10.1037//0097-7403.21.2.166. View

5.
Bullens J, Nardini M, Doeller C, Braddick O, Postma A, Burgess N . The role of landmarks and boundaries in the development of spatial memory. Dev Sci. 2010; 13(1):170-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00870.x. View