Skip to main content

Different “routes” to a cognitive map: dissociable forms of spatial knowledge derived from route and cartographic map learning

Memory & Cognition volume 42, pages 1106–1117 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

An important, but as yet incompletely resolved, issue is whether spatial knowledge acquired during navigation differs significantly from that acquired by studying a cartographic map. This, in turn, is relevant to understanding the generalizability of the concept of a “cognitive map,” which is often likened to a cartographic map. On the basis of previous theoretical proposals, we hypothesized that route and cartographic map learning would produce differences in the dynamics of acquisition of landmark-referenced (allocentric) knowledge, relative to view-referenced (egocentric) knowledge. We compared this model with competing predictions from two other models linked to route versus map learning. To test these ideas, participants repeatedly performed a judgment of relative direction (JRD) and a scene- and orientation-dependent pointing (SOP) task while undergoing route and cartographic map learning of virtual spatial environments. In Experiment 1, we found that map learning led to significantly faster improvements in JRD pointing accuracy than did route learning. In Experiment 2, in contrast, we found that route learning led to more immediate and greater improvements overall in SOP accuracy, as compared to map learning. Comparing Experiments 1 and 2, we found a significant three-way interaction effect, indicating that improvements in performance differed for the JRD versus the SOP task as a function of route versus map learning. We interpreted these findings as suggesting that the learning modality differentially affects the dynamics of how we utilize primarily landmark-referenced versus view-referenced knowledge, suggesting potential differences in how we utilize spatial representations acquired from routes versus cartographic maps.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. Although Siegel and White (1975) are not explicit as to whether routes and maps go through the same hierarchical steps, they state on page 43 that “Survey maps appear as coordinations of routes within an objective frame of reference . . . [and are] possible only after both routes and an object frame of reference exist.” This statement would seem to imply that both modes of learning involve the same steps.

  2. Although kinesthetic and vestibular inputs contribute to egocentric representation and are degraded in virtual reality (Bakker, Werkhoven, & Passenier, 1999), because view and orientation are considered primary influences on egocentric representation (Klatzky, 1998), we consider the SOP task to be a measure primarily of egocentric representation. Certainly, allocentric representation may, in some instances, aid in solving the egocentric task. This should primarily be the case, though, during disorientation, as was suggested by Waller and Hodgson (2006). By ensuring participants’ orientation during the SOP task, we reasoned that participants would primarily employ egocentric representations during that task.

  3. As was pointed out by Mou et al. (2004), the JRD pointing task has both egocentric and allocentric components (Mou et al., 2004). This is because interobject relations still must be mapped onto an egocentric frame (one’s current position) while, simultaneously, one must use external coordinates (the other landmarks) to make judgments about the relative positions of the three objects in the environment. Particularly in the absence of orienting information, and as compared with the SOP task, however, the JRD task provides insight primarily into landmark-referenced knowledge.

References

  • Appleyard, D. (1970). Styles and methods of structuring a city. Environment and Behavior, 2, 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, N. H., Werkhoven, P. J., & Passenier, P. O. (1999). The effects of proprioceptive and visual feedback on geographical orientation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, N. (2006). Spatial memory: How egocentric and allocentric combine. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 551–557. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, P., Becker, S., & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: A neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychological Review, 114, 340–375. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.340

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., Byrne, P., & Crawford, J. D. (2011). Time course of allocentric decay, egocentric decay, and allocentric-to-egocentric conversion in memory-guided reach. Neuropsychologia, 49, 49–60. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10.031

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrastil, E. R. (2013). Neural evidence supports a novel framework for spatial navigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 208–227. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0351-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, A. D. (2010). Navigation in virtual space: Psychological and neural aspects. In G. F. Koob, R. F. Thomspon, & M. LeMoal (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral neuroscience (pp. 286–293). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. W., & Pezdek, K. (1980). Cognitive mapping: Knowledge of real-world distance and location information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 13–24. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.1.13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, T., Maguire, E. A., Spiers, H. J., & Burgess, N. (2003). The well-worn route and the path less traveled: Distinct neural bases of route following and wayfinding in humans. Neuron, 37, 877–888.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirtle, S. C., & Hudson, J. (1991). Acquisition of spatial knowledge for routes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, M. C., & Sholl, M. J. (2005). Allocentric coding of object-to-object relations in overlearned and novel environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1069–1087. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1069

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Iaria, G., Petrides, M., Dagher, A., Pike, B., & Bohbot, V. D. (2003). Cognitive strategies dependent on the hippocampus and caudate nucleus in human navigation: Variability and change with practice. Journal of Neuroscience, 23, 5945–5952.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Igloi, K., Zaoui, M., Berthoz, A., & Rondi-Reig, L. (2009). Sequential egocentric strategy is acquired as early as allocentric strategy: Parallel acquisition of these two navigation strategies. Hippocampus, 19, 1199–1211. doi:10.1002/hipo.20595

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 93–129. doi:10.1016/J.Cogpsych.2005.08.003

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, R. (1998). Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In C. Freksa, C. Habel, C. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of spatial knowledge (Vol. 1404, pp. 1–17). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1996). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latini-Corazzini, L., Nesa, M. P., Ceccaldi, M., Guedj, E., Thinus-Blanc, C., Cauda, F., & Peruch, P. (2010). Route and survey processing of topographical memory during navigation. Psychological Research, 74, 545–559. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0276-5

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, P. U., & Tversky, B. (2001). Costs of switching perspectives in route and survey descriptions. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 574–579). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiser, D., Tzelgov, J., & Henik, A. (1987). A comparison of map study methods—Simulated travel vs. conventional study. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 7, 317–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moeser, S. (1988). Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and Behavior, 20, 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montello, D. R., Waller, D., Hegarty, M., & Richardson, A. E. (2004). Spatial memory of real environments, virtual environments, and maps. In G. L. Allen (Ed.), Human spatial memory: Remembering where (pp. 251–285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mou, W., Fan, Y., McNamara, T. P., & Owen, C. B. (2008). Intrinsic frames of reference and egocentric viewpoints in scene recognition. Cognition, 106, 750–769. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.009

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Xiao, C. (2006). Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1274–1290. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 142–157. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, E. L., Caplan, J. B., Kirschen, M. P., Korolev, I. O., Sekuler, R., & Kahana, M. J. (2007). Learning your way around town: How virtual taxicab drivers learn to use both layout and landmark information. Cognition, 104, 231–253. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.013

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noordzij, M. L., Zuidhoek, S., & Postma, A. (2006). The influence of visual experience on the ability to form spatial mental models based on route and survey descriptions. Cognition, 100, 321–342. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.006

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packard, M. G., & McGaugh, J. L. (1996). Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 65, 65–72. doi:10.1006/nlme.1996.0007

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poucet, B. (1993). Spatial cognitive maps in animals: New hypotheses on their structure and neural mechanisms. Psychological Review, 100, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.163

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27, 741–750

  • Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1157–1165. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., McNamara, T. P., Shelton, A. L., & Carr, W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 215–226. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.1.215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rossano, M. J., West, S. O., Robertson, T. J., Wayne, M. C., & Chase, R. B. (1999). The acquisition of route and survey knowledge from computer models. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruddle, R. A., Payne, S. J., & Jones, D. M. (1997). Navigating buildings in “desk-top” virtual environments: Experimental investigations using extended navigational experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddle, R. A., Payne, S. J., & Jones, D. M. (1999). The effects of maps on navigation and search strategies in very-large-scale virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 54–75. doi:10.1037/1076-898x.5.1.54

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Neural correlates of encoding space from route and survey perspectives. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 2711–2717.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2004). Orientation and perspective dependence in route and survey learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 158–170. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. L., & Pippitt, H. A. (2007). Fixed versus dynamic orientations in environmental learning from ground-level and aerial perspectives. Psychological Research, 71, 333–346.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemyakin, F. N. (1962). General problems of orientation in space and space representations. In B. G. Ananyev (Ed.), Psychological Science in the USSR (Vol. 1.). Tech. Rep. No. 11466. Arlington, VA: U.S. Office of Technical Reports. (NTIS No. TT62–11083).

  • Sholl, M. J. (1987). Cognitive maps as orienting schemata. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 615–628. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 9–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  • Taylor, H. A., Naylor, S. J., & Chechile, N. A. (1999). Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspective. Memory & Cognition, 27, 309–319. doi:10.3758/BF03211414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189–208. doi:10.1037/h0061626

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373. doi:10.1037/h0020071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (1992). Distortions in cognitive maps. Geoforum, 2, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valtchanov, D., Barton, K. R., & Ellard, C. (2010). Restorative effects of virtual nature settings. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 503–512. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0308

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waller, D., & Hodgson, E. (2006). Transient and enduring spatial representations under disorientation and self-rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 867–882.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: Insights from animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 376–382. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01961-7

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolbers, T., & Büchel, C. (2005). Dissociable retrosplenial and hippocampal contributions to successful formation of survey representations. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 3333–3340. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4705-04.2005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., Copara, M. S., & Ekstrom, A. D. (2012). Differential recruitment of brain networks following route and cartographic map learning of spatial environments. PLoS ONE, 7, e44886. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044886

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author note

The authors thank John Beck and Evan Layher for assistance with the data. The authors also thank the Kahana lab for generously sharing software, and Colin Kyle for technical assistance. We also thank Weimin Mou and the UC–Davis Memory Group for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Center for Neuroscience, University of California Davis, 1544 Newton Court, Davis, CA, 95618, USA

    Hui Zhang, Ksenia Zherdeva & Arne D. Ekstrom

  2. Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

    Arne D. Ekstrom

Authors
  1. Hui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ksenia Zherdeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arne D. Ekstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arne D. Ekstrom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, H., Zherdeva, K. & Ekstrom, A.D. Different “routes” to a cognitive map: dissociable forms of spatial knowledge derived from route and cartographic map learning. Mem Cogn 42, 1106–1117 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0418-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0418-x

Keywords

  • Spatial navigation
  • Spatial memory
  • Route learning
  • Map learning
  • Spatial knowledge