Object orientation and location updating during nonvisual navigation: The characteristics and effects of object-versus trajectory-centered processing modes

  • M. -A. Amorim
  • S. Glasauer
  • K. Corpinot
  • A. Berthoz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 988)


The present study investigates the effect of two distinct processing modes on object location and appearance updating during a guided walk without vision. As a calibration procedure, 12 subjects rotated a head-fixed miniature model until it matched the memorized orientation of the corresponding object, to measure initial (mis)perception of object orientation before the walking task. In the main experiment, observers either continuously kept track of the memorized object appearance during the walk (object-centered task), or they deduced object attributes at a terminal viewing position from continuous trajectory-mapping and knowledge of the object appearance at the initial position (trajectory-centered task), depending on the experimental session. Heading toward the memorized object location and object model rotation supplied information on respectively object location and orientation. Results showed that the two processing modes affected differently spontaneous walk velocity, object orientation updating and retrieval time. Estimation of walked distance and spatial inference processes are the two main sources of errors when updating object location and orientation while walking blind under external guidance.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amorim M-A, Loomis, JM, & Fukusima, SS (1995) Spatial updating of objet shape during real and imagined perspective change following visual preview. Proceedings of the ICPA-8 Conference Poster Session, Marseilles, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown C, Durrant-White H, Leonard J, Rao B, Steer B (1989) Centralized and decentralized Kaiman filter techniques for tracking, navigation, and control. Revised Technical Report 277, Computer Science Department, University of Rochester NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Cochran WG, Cox GM (1957) Experimental designs. Toronto: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  4. Durrant-White HF (1990) Sensor models and multisensor integration, In Cox IJ, & Wilfong GT (eds) Autonomous robot vehicles. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp 73–89Google Scholar
  5. Ferrigno G, Pedotti A (1985) ELITE: A digital dedicated hardware system for movement analysis via real-time TV signal processing. IEEE Trans on Biomed Eng 32:943–950Google Scholar
  6. Fukusima SS, Loomis JM, Da Silva JA (1995) Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  7. Gibson JJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston MA: Houghton-MifflinGoogle Scholar
  8. Glasauer S, Amorim M-A, Vitte E, Berthoz A (1994) Goal-directed linear locomotion in normal and labyrinthine-defective subjects. Exp Brain Res 98:323–335Google Scholar
  9. Golledge RG, Klatzky, RL, Loomis, JM (1994) Cognitive mapping and wayfinding by adults without vision. In J. Portugali J (ed) The construction of cognitive mapsGoogle Scholar
  10. Huttenlocher J, Presson CC (1973) Mental rotation and the perspective problem. Cogn Psychol 4:277–299Google Scholar
  11. Kosslyn S (1981) The medium and the message in mental imagery: A theory. Psychol Rev 88:46–66Google Scholar
  12. Lee DN (1980) Visuo-Motor Coordination in Space-Time. In Stelmach GE, Requin J (eds) Tutorials in motor behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp 281–293Google Scholar
  13. Levine M, Jankovic IN, Palij M (1982) Principles of spatial problem solving. J Exp Psychol: Gen 111:157–175Google Scholar
  14. Loarer E, Savoyant A (1991) Visual imagery in locomotor movement without vision. In Logie RH, Denis M (eds) Mental Images in Human Cognition. Elsevier Science, pp 35–46Google Scholar
  15. Loomis JM, Da Silva JA, Fujita N, Fukusima SS (1992) Visual space perception and visually guided action. J Exp Psychol: HPP 18:906–921Google Scholar
  16. Loomis JM, Klatzky RL, Golledge RG, Cicinelli JG, Pellegrino JW, Fry PA (1993) Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability. J Exp Psychol: Gen 122:73–91Google Scholar
  17. Mittelstaedt ML, Glasauer S (1991) Idiothetic navigation in gerbils and humans. Zool Jahrb Abteil Zool Physiol der Tiere 95:437–435Google Scholar
  18. Mittelstaedt H, Mittelstaedt M (1980) Homing by path integration in a mammal. Naturwiss 67:566Google Scholar
  19. Philbeck JW, Loomis JM (1995) A comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  20. Pinker S, Finke RA (1980) Emergent two-dimensional patterns in images rotated in depth. J Exp Psychol: HPP 6:244–264Google Scholar
  21. Rieser JJ (1989) Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. J Exp Psychol: Learn, Mem, & Cogn 15:1157–1165Google Scholar
  22. Rieser JJ, Rider, EA (1991) Young children's spatial orientation with respect to multiple targets when walking without vision. Dev Psychol 27:97–107Google Scholar
  23. Stevens A, Coupe P (1978) Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cogn Psychol 10:422–437Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. -A. Amorim
    • 1
  • S. Glasauer
    • 2
  • K. Corpinot
    • 1
  • A. Berthoz
    • 1
  1. 1.LPPA-Collège de France-CNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Neurology, Klinikum GroßhadernUniversity of MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations