Navigating by Mind and by Body

  • Barbara Tversky
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2685)


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.


Spatial Behavior Dead Reckoning Global Plan Conjunction Fallacy Geographic Entity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bryant, D. J. and Tversky, B. (1999). Mental representations of spatial relations from diagrams and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird, J. (1979). Studies of the cognitive representation of spatial relations: I. Overview. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 90–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird, J., Merril, A., & Tannenbaum, J. (1979). Studies of the cognitive representations of spatial relations: II. A familiar environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant, D. J., Tversky, B., & Franklin, N. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scene. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Franklin, N. and Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallistel, C. R. (1989). Animal cognition: The representation of space, time and number. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 155–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Golledge, R. G. (Editor). (1999). Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hirtle, S. C. and Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory and Cognition, 13, 208–217.Google Scholar
  15. Holyoak, K. J. and Mah, W. A. (1982). Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 328–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Maki, R. H. (1981). Categorization and distance effects with spatial linear orders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNamara, T. P. and Diwadkar, V. A. (1997). Symmetry and asymmetry of human spatial memory. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 160–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Newcombe, N. and Liben, L. (1982). Barrier effects in the cognitive maps of children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Portugali, Y. (1993). Implicate relations: Society and space in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Poulton, E. C. (1989). Bias in quantifying judgements. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference point. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadalla, E. K., Burroughs, W. J., and Staplin, L. J. (1980). Reference points in spatial cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadalla, E. K. and Magel, S. G. (1980). The perception of traversed distance. Environment and Behavior, 12, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadalla, E. K. and Staplin, L. J. (1980). The perception of traversed distance: Intersections. Environment and Behavior, 12 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thorndyke, P. (1981) Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 526–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tversky, B. (1981). Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky, B. (1992). Distortions in cognitive maps. Geoforum, 23, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Tversky, B. (2001). Spatial schemas in depictions. In M. Gattis (Editor), Spatial schemas and abstract thought. Pp. 79–111.Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Tversky, B., & Lee, P. U. (1999). Pictorial and verbal tools for conveying routes. In C., Freksa, & D. M., Mark, (Eds.), Spatial information theory: Cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science (pp. 51–64). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilton, R. N. (1979). Knowledge of spatial relations: The specification of information used in making inferences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Tversky
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations