Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
From Scholarpedia Ranxiao Frances Wang (2007), Scholarpedia, 2(10):3839. Jump to: navigation, search Curator and Contributors 1.00 - Ranxiao Frances Wang 0.75 - Eugene M. Izhikevich
doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.3839
Contents
[hide]
1 What is spatial updating? 2 Different forms of spatial updating 3 Extensions of spatial updating o 3.1 Simulated movements o 3.2 Spatial reasoning and imagined perspective change 4 How to measure spatial updating 5 Perceptual factors influencing spatial updating 6 Cognitive factors influencing spatial updating o 6.1 Instruction o 6.2 Memory decay o 6.3 Capacity limitation o 6.4 Is spatial updating automatic? o 6.5 Type of environment 7 Models of spatial updating o 7.1 Allocentric models o 7.2 Egocentric updating model o 7.3 Dual systems models o 7.4 Physiological model of path integration 8 References 9 See Also
Vector summation is usually considered to be the underlining mechanism. Spatial updating is a very common process found in almost all species tested, including insects, birds, rodents, and primates including humans. Precision of spatial updating varies across species and individuals, and errors can accumulate over time. Spatial updating is one of the fundamental forms of navigation that occurs automatically and continuously whenever an animal moves (Schmidt, et al., 1992), and it contributes to object and scene recognition by predicting the appearance of objects or scenes from new vantage points so that the animal can recognize them easily as it moves (Simons & Wang, 1998). Spatial updating also has profound impact on spatial reasoning and spatial imagery. Physical movements consistent with spatial imaginations can facilitate performance, while inconsistent physical movements can lead to impairment (Presson & Montello, 1994).
Simulated movements
With the development of virtual reality technology, visual and other perceptual stimulations can be presented to the sensory system to simulate real movements while the observer physically remains stationary. Judgments of the new spatial relationships after simulated movements often resemble the pattern with real movements, but with reduced efficiency (Wraga, Creem-Regehr, & Proffitt, 2004).
Memory decay
Spatial updating is also subject to memory decay when the relevant perceptual information is eliminated. For example, when desert ants are captured during their foraging journey and placed
in a container, their ability to follow a particular vector course vanished after a few days, suggesting their memory of the homing vector may be lost over time (Ziegler & Wehner, 1997).
Capacity limitation
Recent studies have shown that spatial updating has capacity limitations and the updating performance depends on the number of objects to be updated (i.e., the set-size effect). In these studies, people were asked to locate varying numbers of objects either after spatial updating or without spatial updating. Increasing the number of target objects impairs peoples localization performance when they need to do updating, but has little effect when people remained stationary and no updating is needed. This set-size effect suggests that spatial updating has a capacity limitation and cannot update large number of targets without losing efficiency (Wang, 2007). Because of the limitation in the number of targets a spatial updating system can keep track of effectively, humans have been shown to switch targets when they move from one environment to another. For example, studies have shown that spatial updating in nested environments (e.g., a room inside a building, a building inside a city, etc.) does not occur for all environments at the same time. While navigating between nested environments, people seem to switch representations at particular spatial regions to maintain online those environments they are approaching, and this process is accompanied by losing track of ones relation to the old environments. As a consequence, humans readily form new spatial representations during navigation, but often do not incorporate them into the existing system of spatial knowledge (Wang, 2003).
Type of environment
Spatial updating also depends on the target type. It has been shown that the scale of the environment and perceptual experience of the targets can also influence the updating process. For example, a study on spatial updating in multiple, nested environments asked blindfolded human subjects to turn either relative to the small, immediate environment, or to the larger, more remote environment, and then point to targets in both the environment in which they turned (updated environment) and the other environment (non-updated background environment). People automatically kept track of their relationship to targets in their immediate surroundings, but they did not update the more remote environment unless they were explicitly instructed to, suggesting that the spatial updating process depends on the nature of the environment (Wang & Brockmole, 2003). Similar studies have shown that perceptual experience of the targets also plays a role in the spatial updating process. Directly perceived target objects (for example, objects learned visually, by touch, etc.) are updated automatically, while targets learned through verbal description alone without direct perceptual experience are not updated automatically (Wang, 2004). Moreover, objects learned in virtual reality are also updated automatically, suggesting that perceptual experience of the objects is a important factor for spatial updating.
Figure 1: Target positions are represented by vectors relative to origin. The animal represents its position relative to origin as a vector H, and when it moves, it adds the movement vector M to H to compute its new position relative to origin (H).
It was recently proposed that spatial updating is primarily an egocentric system (Wang & Spelke, 2002). According to this model, each target location is encoded with respect to the observer rather than to an external reference frame. Spatial updating is the process that accounts for changes in the relationship between the observer and each target in the environment and maintains a dynamic representation of these egocentric vectors (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: All targets are represented as egocentric vectors. As the animal moves, it subtracts the movement vector M from these vectors (A & B) individually to compute the new egocentric vectors (A & B). Thus, the egocentric updating model requires updating of multiple target positions relative to the observer, while allocentric models require updating of the single observers position with respect to the environment.
References
Amorim, M.-A., Glasauer, S., Corpinot, K., & Berthoz, A. (1997). Updating an objects orientation and location during nonvisual navigation: A comparison between two processing modes. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 404-418. Collett, M., Collett, T. S., & Wehner, R. (1999). Calibration of vector navigation in desert ants. Current Biology, 9, 1031-1034. Farrell, M. J. & Robertson, I. H. (1998). Mental rotation and automatic updating of bodycentered spatial relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 227-233. Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447-1455. May, M. (2004). Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 163-206. McNaughton, B. L., Barnes, C. A., Gerrard, J. L., Gothard, K., Jung, M. W., Knierim, J. J., Kudrimoti, H., Qin, Y., Skaggs, Q. W., Suster, M. & Weaver, K. L. (1996). Deciphering the hippocampal polyglot: the hippocampus as a path integration system. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 173-185. Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and Egocentric Updating of Spatial Memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 142-157. Mller, M., & Wehner, R. (1994). The hidden spiral: Systematic search and path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. Journal of Comparative Physiology A-Sensory Neural & Behavioral Physiology, 175, 525-530. O'Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon. Schmidt, I., Collett, T. S., Dillier, F. X., & Wehner, R. (1992). How desert ants cope with enforced detours on their way home. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 171, 285-288. Simons, D. J., & Wang, R. F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science, 9, 315-320. Srinivasan, M. V., Zhang, S. W., Lehrer, M., & Collett, T. S. (1996). Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: Visual flight control and odometry. Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 237244.
Wang, R. F. (2003). Spatial representations and spatial updating. In D. E. Irwin & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 42, Advances in Research and Theory: Cognitive Vision, pp. 109-156. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wang, R. F. (2004). Between reality and imagination: When is spatial updating automatic? Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 68-76. Wang, R. F., & Brockmole, J. R. (2003). Simultaneous spatial updating in nested environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 981-986. Wang, R. F. (2007). Spatial processing and view-dependent representations. In F. Mast & L. Jancke (Eds.), Spatial Processing in Navigation, Imagery, and Perception, pp. 49-65. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human Spatial Representation: Insights from Animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 376-382. Wraga, M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2004). Spatial updating of virtual displays during self- and display rotation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 399-415. Ziegler, P. E., & Wehner, R. (1997). Time-courses of memory decay in vector-based and landmark-based systems of navigation in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. Journal of Comparative Physiology A-Sensory Neural & Behavioral Physiology, 181, 13-20.
Internal references
See Also
Cognitive Map, Hippocampus, Navigation, Vision Sponsored by: Eugene M. Izhikevich, Editor-in-Chief of Scholarpedia, the peer-reviewed openaccess encyclopedia Reviewed by: Anonymous Accepted on: 2007-10-25 16:23:29 GMT Retrieved from "http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spatial_updating&oldid=47716" Category:
Vision
Personal tools
Namespaces
Page Discussion
Navigation
Recently proposed articles Recent changes All articles List all Curators List all users Scholarpedia Journal
Toolbox
What links here Related changes Special pages Printable version Permanent link This page was last modified on 17 September 2008, at 17:06. This page has been accessed 7,129 times. Served in 0.866 secs. Contact Scholarpedia for copyright details. Privacy policy About Scholarpedia Disclaimers