Literature DB >> 25944773

How you get there from here: interaction of visual landmarks and path integration in human navigation.

Mintao Zhao1, William H Warren2.   

Abstract

How do people combine their sense of direction with their use of visual landmarks during navigation? Cue-integration theory predicts that such cues will be optimally integrated to reduce variability, whereas cue-competition theory predicts that one cue will dominate the response direction. We tested these theories by measuring both accuracy and variability in a homing task while manipulating information about path integration and visual landmarks. We found that the two cues were near-optimally integrated to reduce variability, even when landmarks were shifted up to 90°. Yet the homing direction was dominated by a single cue, which switched from landmarks to path integration when landmark shifts were greater than 90°. These findings suggest that cue integration and cue competition govern different aspects of the homing response: Cues are integrated to reduce response variability but compete to determine the response direction. The results are remarkably similar to data on animal navigation, which implies that visual landmarks reset the orientation, but not the precision, of the path-integration system.
© The Author(s) 2015.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian integration; cue competition; navigation; path integration; visual landmarks

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25944773     DOI: 10.1177/0956797615574952

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  18 in total

1.  Optimal combination of environmental cues and path integration during navigation.

Authors:  Lori A Sjolund; Jonathan W Kelly; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-01

2.  Spatial Updating Strategy Affects the Reference Frame in Path Integration.

Authors:  Qiliang He; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-06

3.  Rotational error in path integration: encoding and execution errors in angle reproduction.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Chrastil; William H Warren
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Bayesian decision theory and navigation.

Authors:  Timothy P McNamara; Xiaoli Chen
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-11-24

5.  For humans navigating without vision, navigation depends upon the layout of mechanically contacted ground surfaces.

Authors:  Steven J Harrison; Scott Bonnette; MaryLauren Malone
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Using virtual reality to assess dynamic self-motion and landmark cues for spatial updating in children and adults.

Authors:  Erica M Barhorst-Cates; Jessica Stoker; Jeanine K Stefanucci; Sarah H Creem-Regehr
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-10-27

7.  Environmental deformations dynamically shift human spatial memory.

Authors:  Alexandra T Keinath; Ohad Rechnitz; Vijay Balasubramanian; Russell A Epstein
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.899

8.  Vestibular cues improve landmark-based route navigation: A simulated driving study.

Authors:  Yasaman Jabbari; Darren M Kenney; Martin von Mohrenschildt; Judith M Shedden
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-05-20

9.  How vision and self-motion combine or compete during path reproduction changes with age.

Authors:  Karin Petrini; Andrea Caradonna; Celia Foster; Neil Burgess; Marko Nardini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Finding Home: Landmark Ambiguity in Human Navigation.

Authors:  Simon Jetzschke; Marc O Ernst; Julia Froehlich; Norbert Boeddeker
Journal:  Front Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 3.558

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.