Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 582–590 | Cite as

Sex differences in virtual navigation influenced by scale and navigation experience

  • Lace M. Padilla
  • Sarah H. Creem-Regehr
  • Jeanine K. Stefanucci
  • Elizabeth A. Cashdan
Brief Report

Abstract

The Morris water maze is a spatial abilities test adapted from the animal spatial cognition literature and has been studied in the context of sex differences in humans. This is because its standard design, which manipulates proximal (close) and distal (far) cues, applies to human navigation. However, virtual Morris water mazes test navigation skills on a scale that is vastly smaller than natural human navigation. Many researchers have argued that navigating in large and small scales is fundamentally different, and small-scale navigation might not simulate natural human navigation. Other work has suggested that navigation experience could influence spatial skills. To address the question of how individual differences influence navigational abilities in differently scaled environments, we employed both a large- (146.4 m in diameter) and a traditional- (36.6 m in diameter) scaled virtual Morris water maze along with a novel measure of navigation experience (lifetime mobility). We found sex differences on the small maze in the distal cue condition only, but in both cue-conditions on the large maze. Also, individual differences in navigation experience modulated navigation performance on the virtual water maze, showing that higher mobility was related to better performance with proximal cues for only females on the small maze, but for both males and females on the large maze.

Keywords

Virtual navigation Sex differences Navigation experience 

References

  1. Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93(1–2), 185–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., M. Maechler & B. Bolker (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 (R package version 0.999999-0)
  3. Cashdan, E., & Gaulin, S. J. (2016). Why go there? Evolution of mobility and spatial cognition in women and men. Human Nature, 27,(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  4. Chai, X. J., & Jacobs, L. F. (2009). Sex differences in directional cue use in a virtual landscape. Behavioral Neuroscience, 123(2), 276–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chai, X. J., & Jacobs, L. F. (2010). Effects of cue types on sex differences in human spatial memory. Behavioural Brain Research, 208(2), 336–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, J., McKillop, E., Ward, M., & L’Hirondelle, N. (2006). Sex-specific relationships etween route-learning strategies and abilities in a large-scale environment. Environment and Behavior, 38(6), 791–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D’Hooge, R., & De Deyn, P. P. (2001). Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory. Brain Research Reviews, 36(1), 60–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ecuyer-Dab, I., & Robert, M. (2004). Spatial ability and home-range size: Examining the relationship in Western men and women (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology (Washington, D.C.: 1983), 118(2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34(2), 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, C., Braithwaite, V., & Healy, S. (2003). The evolution of sex differences in spatial ability. Behavioral Neuroscience, 117(3), 403–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Knierim, J., & Hamilton, D. (2011). Framing spatial cognition: neural representations of proximal and distal frames of reference and their roles in navigation. Physiological Reviews, 91(4), 1245–1279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Learmonth, A. E., Nadel, L., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Children’s use of landmarks: Implications for modularity theory. Psychological Science, 13(4), 337–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Learmonth, A. E., Newcombe, N. S., Sheridan, N., & Jones, M. (2008). Why size counts: Children’s spatial reorientation in large and small enclosures. Developmental Science, 11(3), 414–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawton, C. (1994). Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles, 30(11-12), 765–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livingstone-Lee, S., Murchison, S., Zeman, P., Gandhi, M., van Gerven, D., Stewart, L., … Skelton, R. (2011). Simple gaze analysis and special design of a virtual Morris water maze provides a new method for differentiating egocentric and allocentric navigational strategy choice. Behavioural Brain Research, 225(1), 117–125.Google Scholar
  16. MacDonald, D., & Hewlett, B. (1999). Reproductive Interests and Forager Mobility 1. Current Anthropology, 40(4), 501–524.Google Scholar
  17. Meilinger, T., Riecke, B., & Bülthoff, H. (2014). Local and global reference frames for environmental spaces. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(3), 542–569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Montello DR (1993) Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial Information Theory – A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 312–321Google Scholar
  19. Morris, R. (1984). Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 11(1), 47–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Nadel, L., & Hardt, O. (2004). The spatial brain. Neuropsychology, 18(3), 473.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Keefe, J., & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map (Vol. 3, pp. 483-484). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sandstrom, N., Kaufman, J., & Huettel, S. A. (1998). Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research, 6(4), 351–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H. Y., Gray, D., & Liss, S. (2011). Summary of travel trends: 2009 national household travel survey (No. FHWA-PL-ll-022).Google Scholar
  24. Tolman, E. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Unity Technologies (2015). Unity 5 Professional Edition. San Francisco, California. http://unity3d.com/get-unity
  26. Vashro, L., & Cashdan, E. (2015). Spatial cognition, mobility, and reproductive success in northwestern Namibia. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vashro, L., Padilla, L., & Cashdan, E. (2016). Sex differences in mobility and spatial cognition. Human Nature, 27(1), 16–34.Google Scholar
  28. Vorhees, C., & Williams, M. (2006). Morris water maze: Procedures for assessing spatial and related forms of learning and memory. Nature Protocols, 1(2), 848–858.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolbers, T., & Wiener, J. (2014). Challenges for identifying the neural mechanisms that support spatial navigation: the impact of spatial scale. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 571.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lace M. Padilla
    • 1
  • Sarah H. Creem-Regehr
    • 1
  • Jeanine K. Stefanucci
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Cashdan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations