Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp 288–297 | Cite as

Biased representations of the spatial structure of navigable environments

  • Christine M. Valiquette
  • Timothy P. McNamaraEmail author
  • Jennifer S. Labrecque
Original Article

Abstract

Recent studies (e.g., Shelton & McNamara in Cognitive Psychology, 43(4), 274–310, 2001; Valiquette, McNamara, & Smith in Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 479–489, 2003) have demonstrated that judgments of relative direction (JRD) access a single enduring orientation-dependent allocentric representation of the layout of objects in an environment, regardless of whether the space is viewed from one or multiple vantage points. Two experiments tested the limits of this phenomenon. In both experiments participants learned the locations of objects in a large room from two views: one view was aligned with salient environmental frames of reference (edges of the mat on which objects were placed and walls of the enclosing room) and expected to be preserved in long-term memory; the other view was misaligned and not expected to be preserved in long-term memory. The first experiment demonstrated that performing JRD between studying the misaligned view and studying the aligned view did not result in the misaligned view being maintained in long-term memory. The second experiment demonstrated that after studying the layout extensively from the misaligned view, 30 s of exposure to the aligned view (with no instructions to learn the layout from that view) resulted in the aligned but not the misaligned view being preserved in long-term memory. These findings indicate that the human spatial memory and navigation system is strongly biased to represent the spatial structure of navigable environments with reference directions or axes that are aligned with salient environmental frames of reference.

Keywords

Recall Task Reaction Time Data Angular Error Orthogonal Axis Viewing Position 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Easton, R. D., & Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 483–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. May, M. (2004). Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 48(2), 163–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(3), 589–595.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28(1), 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30(1), 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23(12), 1447–1455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Presson, C. C., DeLange, N., & Hazelrigg, M. D. (1987). Orientation-specificity in kinesthetic spatial learning: The role of multiple orientations. Memory and Cognition, 15(3), 225–229.Google Scholar
  8. Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 741–750.Google Scholar
  9. Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1157–1165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4(1), 102–106.Google Scholar
  11. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43(4), 274–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Valiquette C., McNamara T. P., & Smith K. (2003). Locomotion, incidental learning, and the selection of spatial reference systems. Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 479–489.Google Scholar
  13. Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition, 77(3), 215–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Werner, S., & Schmidt, K. (1999). Environmental reference systems for large scale spaces. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wheeler M. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard’s (1913) and Bartlett’s (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3(4), 240–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine M. Valiquette
    • 1
  • Timothy P. McNamara
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer S. Labrecque
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations