Cognitive Processing

, Volume 7, Supplement 1, pp 90–92 | Cite as

Hybrid architecture for the sensorimotor representation of spatial configurations

  • Kerstin Schill
  • Christoph Zetzsche
  • Johannes Wolter
Oral Paper
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

We investigate the hypothesis that the main representation which underlies human navigation is not static and map-like, but rather is of an inherently sensorimotor nature, i.e. results from a combination of sensory features and motor actions. This is suggested by recent psychological and neurobiological results, and receives further support from an own study of human navigation in manipulated virtual reality environments. To investigate the presumed sensorimotor representation we design a hybrid architecture which integrates a bottom-up processing of sensorimotor features with a top-down reasoning that is based on the principle of maximum information gain. This architecture is implemented in an agent that operates in a VR environment and is able to use a minimum number of exploratory actions to orient itself within this environment.

Keywords

Sensorimotor representation Information maximization Navigation 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Study supported by DFG SFB TR 8 “Spatial Cognition”.

References

  1. 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 Mem Cogn 31(2):195–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillner S, Mallot HA (1998) Navigation and acquisition of spatial knowledge in a virtual maze. J Cogn Neurosci 10(4):445–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kuipers B (1982) The “map in the head” metaphor. Environ Behav 14:202–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuipers B (2000) The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artif Intell 119:191–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Laeng B, Teodorescu DS (2002) Eye scanpaths during visual imagery reenact those of perception of the same visual scene. Cogn Sci 26(2):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moore T (1999) Shape representations and visual guidance of saccadic eye movements. Science 285(5435):1914–1917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Prinz W (1990) A common coding approach to perception and action. In: Neumann O, Prinz W (eds) Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York , pp 167–203Google Scholar
  9. Schill K, Umkehrer E, Beinlich S, Krieger G, Zetzsche C (2001) Scene analysis with saccadic eye movements: top-down and bottom-up modelling. J Electron Imaging 10(1):152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Tversky B (1993) Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 716. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 14–24Google Scholar
  12. Wang RF, Spelke ES (2000) Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition 77:215–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Schill
    • 1
  • Christoph Zetzsche
    • 1
  • Johannes Wolter
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive NeuroinformaticsUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations