Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 237–247 | Cite as

Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans: generality across real and virtual environments

  • Bradley R. SturzEmail author
  • Kent D. Bodily
  • Jeffrey S. Katz
  • Debbie M. Kelly
Original Paper

Abstract

A real-world open-field search task was implemented with humans as an analogue of Blaisdell and Cook’s (Anim Cogn 8:7–16, 2005) pigeon foraging task and Sturz, Bodily, and Katz’s (Anim Cogn 9:207–217, 2006) human virtual foraging task to 1) determine whether humans were capable of integrating independently learned spatial maps and 2) make explicit comparisons of mechanisms used by humans to navigate real and virtual environments. Participants searched for a hidden goal located in one of 16 bins arranged in a 4 × 4 grid. In Phase 1, the goal was hidden between two landmarks (blue T and red L). In Phase 2, the goal was hidden to the left and in front of a single landmark (blue T). Following training, goal-absent trials were conducted in which the red L from Phase 1 was presented alone. Bin choices during goal-absent trials assessed participants’ strategies: association (from Phase 1), generalization (from Phase 2), or integration (combination of Phase 1 and 2). Results were inconsistent with those obtained with pigeons but were consistent with those obtained with humans in a virtual environment. Specifically, during testing, participants did not integrate independently learned spatial maps but used a generalization strategy followed by a shift in search behavior away from the test landmark. These results were confirmed by a control condition in which a novel landmark was presented during testing. Results are consistent with the bulk of recent findings suggesting the use of alternative navigational strategies to cognitive mapping. Results also add to a growing body of literature suggesting that virtual environment approaches to the study of spatial learning and memory have external validity and that spatial mechanisms used by human participants in navigating virtual environments are similar to those used in navigating real-world environments.

Keywords

Open field Virtual environment Human Spatial Cognitive map Integration Gender differences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by an Alzheimer Society of Canada Grant to Debbie M. Kelly and a National Science Foundation Grant (0316113) to Jeffrey S. Katz. This research was conducted following the relevant ethical guidelines for human research. The authors would like to thank Danielle Fontaine and Jim Reichert for their assistance with data collection. The authors also would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Arthur EJ, Hancock PA, Chrysler ST (1997) The perception of spatial layout in real and virtual worlds. Ergonomics 40:69–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astur RS, Ortiz ML, Sutherland RJ (1998) A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: a large and reliable sex difference. Behav Brain Res 93:185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biegler R, Morris RGM (1993) Landmark stability is a prerequisite for spatial but not discrimination learning. Nature 361:631–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biegler R, Morris RGM (1996) Landmark stability: further studies pointing to a role in spatial learning. Q J Exp Psychol 49B:307–345Google Scholar
  5. Bennett AT (1996) Do animals have cognitive maps? J Exp Biol 199:219–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaisdell AP, Cook RG (2005) Integration of spatial maps in pigeons. Anim Cogn 8:7–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chamizo VD, Rodrigo T, Mackintosh NJ (2006) Spatial integration with rats. Learn Behav 34:348–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng K, Shettleworth SJ, Huttenlocher J, Rieser JJ (2007) Bayesian integration of spatial information. Psychol Bull 133:625–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng K, Spetch ML, Kelly DM, Bingman VP (2006) Small-scale spatial cognition in pigeons. Behav Process 72:115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi J, McKillop E, Ward M, L’Hirondelle N (2006) Sex-specific relationships between route-learning strategies and abilities in a large-scale environment. Environ Behav 38:791–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dabbs JM, Chang E, Strong RA, Milun R (1998) Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evol Hum Behav 19:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foo P, Warren WH, Duchon A, Tarr MJ (2005) Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. J Exp Psychol Learn 31:195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallistel CR (1990) The organization of learning. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson BM (2001) Cognitive maps not used by humans during a dynamic navigational task. J Comp Psychol 115:397–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson BM, Kamil AC (2001) Tests for cognitive mapping in Clark’s nutcrackers. J Comp Psychol 115:403–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grön G, Wunderlich AP, Spitzer M, Tomczak R, Riepe MW (2000) Brain activation during human navigation: gender-different neural networks as substrate of performance. Nat Neurosci 3:404–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartley T, King JA, Burgess N (2003) Studies of the neural basis of human navigation and memory. In: Jeffery KJ (ed) The neurobiology of spatial behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 144–164Google Scholar
  18. Jeffrey KJ (1998) Learning of landmark stability and instability by hippocampal place cells. Neuropharmacology 37:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly DM, Bischof WF (2005) Reorienting in images of a three-dimensional environment. J Exp Psychol Hum 31:1391–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly DM, Gibson BM (2007) Spatial navigation: spatial learning in real and virtual environments. Comp Cogn Behav Rev 2:111–124Google Scholar
  21. Klatzky RL, Loomis JM, Beall AC, Chance SS, Golledge RG (1998) Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychol Sci 9:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Learmonth AE, Newcombe NS, Huttenlocher J (2001) Toddlers’ use of metric information and landmarks to reorient. J Exp Child Psychol 80:225–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978) The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandstrom NJ, Kaufman J, Huettel SA (1998) Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cogn Brain Res 6:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sawa K, Leising KJ, Blaisdell AP (2005) Sensory preconditioning in spatial learning using a touch-screen task in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim B 31:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shettleworth SJ (1998) Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE (1996) Learning the configurations of a landmark array: I. Touch-screen studies with pigeons and humans. J Comp Psychol 110:55–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spetch ML, Cheng K, MacDonald SE, Linkenhoker BA, Kelly DM, Doerkson S (1997) Learning the configurations of a landmark array in pigeons and humans: II. Generality across search tasks. J Comp Psychol 111:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sturz BR, Bodily KD, Katz JS (2006) Evidence against integration of spatial maps in humans. Anim Cogn 9:207–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thinus-Blanc C (1988) Animal spatial cognition. In: Weiskrantz L (ed) Thought without language. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 371–395Google Scholar
  31. Tolman EC (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55:189–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waller D, Loomis JM, Golledge RG, Beall AC (2000) Place learning in humans: the role of distance and direction information. Spat Cogn Comput 2:333–354Google Scholar
  33. Wang RF, Spelke ES (2002) Human spatial representation: insights from animals. Trends Cogn Sci 6:376–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wehner R, Srinivasan MV (1981) Searching behaviour of desert ants, genus Cataglyphis (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). J Comop Physiol A 142:315–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley R. Sturz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kent D. Bodily
    • 2
  • Jeffrey S. Katz
    • 3
  • Debbie M. Kelly
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArmstrong Atlantic State UniversitySavannahUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations