Search

Three experiments investigated whether navigation is less efficient across boundaries than within boundaries. In an immersive virtual environment, participants learned objects' locations in a large room or a small room. Participants then pointed to the objects' original locations after physically walking a circuitous path without vision. For participants who learned the objects in the large room, the testing position and the learning position were in the same room so that participants did not cross boundaries before testing; for participants who learned the objects in the small room, the testing position and the learning position were in 2 different rooms so that participants crossed boundaries before testing. Participants who learned the objects in the large room, during testing, either saw cues indicating the targets' locations (piloting group) or not (path integration group). Participants who learned the objects in the small room, during testing did not see any cues correctly indicating the targets' locations. The results showed that pointing accuracy was higher for those who learned the objects in the large room and in the piloting group than for those who learned the objects in the small room. However, this cross-boundary cost did not occur when we contrasted participants who learned objects in the large room and in the path integration group with participants who learned in a small room. These results suggested that navigation that relies on path integration only is not sensitive to boundary crossing, although navigation that relies on piloting is less efficient across boundaries than within boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four experiments examined the roles of extended surfaces and the number of points in the boundary superiority effect in goal localization. Participants learned the locations of 4 objects in the presence of a boundary, landmarks, or both in an immersive virtual environment by reproducing the locations with feedback. Participants then localized the objects in the presence of either the boundary or the landmarks during testing without feedback. The results showed that when both 1 landmark and a circular boundary were presented during learning, localization error during testing increased significantly when only the landmark was presented during testing, whereas localization error did not increase when only the boundary was presented during testing, thus demonstrating a boundary superiority effect. This boundary superiority effect was not observed when 36 landmarks forming a circle and a circular boundary were presented during learning. The landmark superiority effect was observed when 36 landmarks, forming a circular shape, and l/36th part of the circular boundary were presented during learning. Furthermore, when a varied number of landmarks were presented with a circular boundary during learning, the localization error when the boundary was removed during testing was negatively correlated with the number of the landmarks. These results indicate that the superiority of a circular boundary to a landmark might be due to the larger number of points in the circular boundary but not due to the extended surface of the circular boundary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]