Abstract

The authors investigated how humans use multiple landmarks to locate a goal. Participants searched for a hidden goal location along a line between 2 distinct landmarks on a computer screen. On baseline trials, the location of the landmarks and goal varied, but the distance between each of the landmarks and the goal was held constant, with 1 landmark always closer to the goal. In Experiment 1, some baseline trials provided both landmarks, and some provided only 1 landmark. On probe trials, both landmarks were shifted apart relative to the previously learned goal location. Participants searched between the locations specified by the 2 landmarks and their search locations were shifted more toward the nearer landmark, suggesting a weighted integration of the conflicting landmarks. Moreover, the observed variance in search responses when both cues were presented in their normal locations was reduced compared to the variance on tests with single landmarks. However, the variance reduction and the weightings of the landmarks did not always show Bayesian optimality. In Experiment 2, some participants were trained only with each of the single landmarks. On subsequent tests with the 2 cues in conflict, searching did not shift toward the nearer landmark and the variance of search responses of these single-cue trained participants was larger than their variance on single-landmark tests, and even larger than the variance predicted by using the 2 landmarks alternatively on different trials. Taken together, these results indicate that cue combination occurs only when the landmarks are presented together during the initial learning experience. (PsycINFO Database Record

Highlights

  • The ability to localize goals is essential for humans, as it is for other animals

  • To what extent do people integrate, or average, spatial information about landmarks to estimate the location of a goal? And does combination of landmark information always occur, or must training include instances in which multiple cues are present? If combination occurs, does the weighting given to different cues depends on their reliability? If so, is the combination optimal as indicated by reduced variance (e.g., Cheng, Shettleworth, Huttenlocher, & Rieser, 2007)? In the current research we addressed these questions in two experiments using a simple spatial task

  • For the two groups trained with only single cues (Groups Sfew and S-many), on all types of tests, the signed deviations were close to zero, indicating that the searching was not biased toward either of the two landmarks

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The ability to localize goals is essential for humans, as it is for other animals. While searching for something from memory, information from multiple cues in the environment may be used to improve search precision. Many studies have shown that humans can combine information from different types of cues (for a review, see Cheng, Shettleworth, Huttenlocher, & Rieser, 2007), such as path integration and landmarks (Chen & McNamara, 2014; Nardini, Jones, Bedford, & Braddick, 2008; Sjolund, 2014; Zhao & Warren, 2015b), directional information from beacons and dead reckoning (Bodily, Daniel, & Sturz, 2012), egocentric and allocentric cues (Byrne & Crawford, 2010), boundaries and landmarks (Doeller & Burgess, 2008), or spatial categories (e.g. left and right halves in a rectangle) and fine-grained spatial information Some studies have suggested that non-human animals can combine information from multiple landmarks (Legge et al, 2016), but the manner and extent to which humans combine information from multiple discrete landmarks to locate a goal is less clear

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call