Navigating by Mind and by Body
Within psychology, at least two research communities study spatial cognition. One community studies systematic errors in spatial memory and judgement, accounting for them as a consequence of and clue to normal perceptual and cognitive processing. The other community studies navigation in real space, isolating the contributions of various sensory cues and sensorimotor systems to successful navigation. The former group emphasizes error, the latter, selective mechanisms, environmental or evolutionary, that produce fine-tuned correct responses.
How can these approaches be reconciled and integrated? First, by showing why errors are impervious to selective pressures. The schematization that leads to errors is a natural consequence of normal perceptual and cognitive processes; it is inherent to the construction of mental spaces and to using them to make judgments in limited capacity working memory. Selection can act on particular instances of errors, yet it is not clear that selection can act on the general mechanisms that produce them. Next, in the wild, there are a variety of correctives. Finally, closer examination of navigation in the wild shows systematic errors, for example, over-shooting in dead reckoning across species. Here, too, environments may provide correctives, specifically, landmarks. General cognitive mechanisms generate general solutions. The errors inevitably produced may be reduced by local specific sensori-motor couplings as well as local environmental cues. Navigation, and other behaviors as well, are a consequence of both.
KeywordsSpatial Behavior Dead Reckoning Global Plan Conjunction Fallacy Geographic Entity
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Berthoz, A., Amorim, M-A., Glassauer, S., Grasso, R., Takei, Y., and Viaud-Delmon, I. (1999). Dissociation between distance and direction during locomotor navigation. In R. G. Golledge (Editor), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Pp. 328–348. Baltimore: Hopkins.Google Scholar
- Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B., and Lanca, M. (2001). Retrieving spatial relations from observation and memory. In E. van der Zee and U. Nikanne (Editors), Conceptual structure and its interfaces with other modules of representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Chase, W. G. & Chi, M. T. H. (1981). Cognitive skill: Implications for spatial skill in largescale environments. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment. Pp. 111–136. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Etienne, A. S., Maurer, R., Georgakopoulos, J., and Griffin, A. (1999). Dead reckoning (path integration), landmarks, and representation of space in a comparative perspective. In R. G. Golledge (Editor), Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Pp. 197–228. Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
- Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Golledge, R. G. (Editor). (1999). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
- Hirtle, S. C. and Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory and Cognition, 13, 208–217.Google Scholar
- Loomis, J.M., Klatzky, R. L, Golledge, R. G., and Philbeck, J. W. (1999) In R. G. Golledge (Editor). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial properties. Pp. 125–151. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
- Milgram, S. and Jodelet, D. (1976). Psychological maps of Paris. In H. Proshansky, W. Ittelson, and L. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental Psychology (second edition). Pp. 104–124. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- Portugali, Y. (1993). Implicate relations: Society and space in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in quantifying judgements. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B. (1993). Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In A. U. Frank and I. Campari (Editors), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS. Pp. 14–24. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B. (2000a). Levels and structure of cognitive mapping. In R. Kitchin and S. M. Freundschuh (Editors). Cognitive mapping: Past, present and future. Pp. 24–43. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B. (2000b). Remembering spaces. In E. Tulving and F. I. M. Craik (Editors), Handbook of Memory. Pp. 363–378. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Editor), Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Pp. 79–111.Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B., Kim, J. and Cohen, A. (1999). Mental models of spatial relations and transformations from language. In C. Habel and G. Rickheit (Editors), Mental models in discourse processing and reasoning. Pp. 239–258. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
- Tversky, B., & Lee, P. U. (1998). How space structures language. In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of spatial knowledge (pp. 157–175). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar