Search

Research on spatial navigation is essential to understanding how mobile species adapt to their environments. Such research increasingly uses virtual environments (VEs) because, although VE has drawbacks, it allows for standardization of procedures, precision in measuring behaviors, ease in introducing variation, and cross-investigator comparability. Developmental researchers have used a wide range of VE testing methods, including desktop computers, gaming consoles, virtual reality, and phone applications. We survey the paradigms to guide researchers' choices, organizing them by their characteristics using a framework proposed by Girard (2022) in which navigation is reactive or deliberative, and may be tied to sensory input or not. This organization highlights what representations each paradigm indicates. VE tools have enriched our picture of the development of navigation, but much research remains to be done, e.g., determining retest reliability, comparing performance on different paradigms, validating performance against real-world behavior and open sharing. Reliable and valid assessments available on open-science repositories are essential for work on the development of navigation, its neural bases, and its implications for other cognitive domains.

Research on the existence of cognitive maps and on the cognitive processes that support effective navigation has often focused on functioning across individuals. However, there are pronounced individual differences in navigation proficiency, which need to be explained and which can illuminate our understanding of cognitive maps and effective navigation. Using a virtual environment involving 2 routes (Virtual Silcton, a desktop virtual environment; Weisberg, Schinazi, Newcombe, Shipley, & Epstein, 2014), we divided people into 3 groups based on their within-route and between-route pointing accuracy: integrators, non-integrators, and imprecise navigators. In Study 1, we found that imprecise navigators have lower spatial and verbal working memory, which may limit their ability to build accurate within-route representations. We also found that integrators maintain excellent memories of buildings as categorized by route membership, possibly supporting the idea of hierarchical representations of the environment. In Study 2, we assessed preferences regarding place and route learning using a virtual version of the rodent T-maze (Marchette, Bakker, & Shelton, 2011). Integrators found more goals overall, and although they did not have an overall preference for a place-based strategy, integrators who did choose a place-based strategy found more goals. The opposite was true for imprecise navigators. In Study 3, we added a monetary incentive for accuracy to evaluate whether increased motivation leads to fewer participants classified as imprecise, but found no significant change in the distribution of performance. These data have theoretical implications for the cognitive map hypothesis, and practical implications for improving navigational functioning. A one-size-fits-all approach may fit none.

Although the hippocampus is implicated in both spatial navigation and associative memory, very little is known about whether individual differences in the 2 domains covary. People who prefer to navigate using a hippocampal-dependent place strategy may show better performance on associative memory tasks than those who prefer a caudate-dependent response strategy (Bohbot, Gupta, Banner, & Dahmani, 2011), but not all studies suggest such an effect (Woollett & Maguire, 2009, 2012). Here we tested nonexpert young adults and found that preference for a place strategy positively correlated with spatial (object-location) associative memory performance but did not correlate with nonspatial (face-name) associative memory performance. Importantly, these correlations differed from each other, indicating that the relation between navigation strategy and associative memory is specific to the spatial domain. In addition, the 2 associative memory tasks significantly correlated, suggesting that object-location memory taps into processes relevant to both hippocampal-dependent navigation and nonspatial associative memory. Our findings also suggest that individual differences in spatial associative memory may account for some of the variance in navigation strategies.

The study of navigation is informed by ethological data from many species, laboratory investigation at behavioural and neurobiological levels, and computational modelling. However, the data are often species-specific, making it challenging to develop general models of how biology supports behaviour. Wiener et al. outlined a framework for organizing the results across taxa, called the 'navigation toolbox' (Wiener et al. In Animal thinking: contemporary issues in comparative cognition (eds R Menzel, J Fischer), pp. 51–76). This framework proposes that spatial cognition is a hierarchical process in which sensory inputs at the lowest level are successively combined into ever-more complex representations, culminating in a metric or quasi-metric internal model of the world (cognitive map). Some animals, notably humans, also use symbolic representations to produce an external representation, such as a verbal description, signpost or map that allows communication of spatial information or instructions between individuals. Recently, new discoveries have extended our understanding of how spatial representations are constructed, highlighting that the hierarchical relationships are bidirectional, with higher levels feeding back to influence lower levels. In the light of these new developments, we revisit the navigation toolbox, elaborate it and incorporate new findings. The toolbox provides a common framework within which the results from different taxa can be described and compared, yielding a more detailed, mechanistic and generalized understanding of navigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this issue is to take stock of cognitive science of human variation in the field of spatial navigation, an important domain in which debates have often assumed an invariant human mind. Addressing the challenge of individual differences requires cognitive scientists to change their practices in several ways. First, we need to consider how to design measures and paradigms that have adequate psychometric characteristics. Second, using reliable, efficient, and valid measures, we need to examine how people vary from time to time, both in the short run due to emotions, such as stress or time pressure, and in the longer run, due to training or living in physical environments that require wayfinding skills. Third, we need to study people different from the traditional college participants, including variations in age, gender, education, culture, physical environment, and possible interactions among these variables. This issue assesses how human spatial navigation differs: within individuals across short‐term variations in mood or stress, and between individuals across variations in age, gender, education, culture, and physical environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on spatial navigation is essential to understanding how mobile species adapt to their environments. Such research increasingly uses virtual environments (VEs) because, although VE has drawbacks, it allows for standardization of procedures, precision in measuring behaviors, ease in introducing variation, and cross-investigator comparability. Developmental researchers have used a wide range of VE testing methods, including desktop computers, gaming consoles, virtual reality, and phone applications. We survey the paradigms to guide researchers' choices, organizing them by their characteristics using a framework proposed by Girard (2022) in which navigation is reactive or deliberative, and may be tied to sensory input or not. This organization highlights what representations each paradigm indicates. VE tools have enriched our picture of the development of navigation, but much research remains to be done, e.g., determining retest reliability, comparing performance on different paradigms, validating performance against real-world behavior and open sharing. Reliable and valid assessments available on open-science repositories are essential for work on the development of navigation, its neural bases, and its implications for other cognitive domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topography of the land provides a suite of spatial information for navigation. In an outdoor field experiment, we examined terrain slant as a nonvisual cue. Without being told which cue to use, blindfolded, sighted participants completed a place-learning task in a flat and a slanted site. Errors were significantly smaller in the slanted site. Furthermore, performance in the slanted – but not flat – site was significantly better than expected if guessing the target's direction. This suggests that proprioceptive/kinesthetic and vestibular cues from the slant were spontaneously used for place-learning, albeit with lower accuracy compared to visual cues. Terrain slope might be an environmental cue that is salient and realistically used by blind and sighted persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As babies rapidly acquire motor skills that give them increasingly independent and wide-ranging access to the environment over the first two years of human life, they decrease their reliance on habit systems for spatial localization, switching to their emerging inertial navigation system and to allocentric frameworks. Initial place learning is evident towards the end of the period. From 3 to 10 years, children calibrate their ability to encode various sources of spatial information (inertial information, geometric cues, beacons, proximal landmarks and distal landmarks) and begin to combine cues, both within and across systems. Geometric cues are important, but do not constitute an innate and encapsulated module. In addition, from 3 to 10 years, children build the capacity to think about frames of reference different from their current one (i.e. to perform perspective taking). By around 12 years, we see adult-level performance and adult patterns of individual differences on cognitive mapping tasks requiring the integration of vista views of space into environmental space. These lines of development are continuous rather than stage-like. Spatial development builds on important beginnings in the neural systems of newborns, but changes in experience-expectant ways with motor development, action in the world and success-failure feedback. Human systems for integrating and manipulating spatial information also benefit from symbolic capacities and technological inventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does gesturing during route learning relate to subsequent spatial performance? We examined the relationship between gestures produced spontaneously while studying route directions and spatial representations of the navigated environment. Participants studied route directions, then navigated those routes from memory in a virtual environment, and finally had their memory of the environment assessed. We found that, for navigators with low spatial perspective-taking performance on the Spatial Orientation Test, more gesturing from a survey perspective predicted more accurate memory following navigation. Thus, co-thought gestures accompanying route learning relate to performance selectively, depending on the gesturers’ spatial ability and the perspective of their gestures. Survey gestures may help some individuals visualize an overall route that they can retain in memory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spatial working memory (WM) seems to include two types of spatial information: locations and relations. However, this distinction has been based on small-scale tasks. Here, we used a virtual navigation paradigm to examine whether WM for locations and relations applies to the largescale spatial world. We found that navigators who successfully learned two routes and also integrated them were superior at maintaining multiple locations and multiple relations in WM. However, over the entire spectrum of navigators, WM for spatial relations, but not locations, was specifically predictive of route integration performance. These results lend further support to the distinction between these two forms of spatial WM and point to their critical role in individual differences in navigation proficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the existence of cognitive maps and on the cognitive processes that support effective navigation has often focused on functioning across individuals. However, there are pronounced individual differences in navigation proficiency, which need to be explained and which can illuminate our understanding of cognitive maps and effective navigation. Using a virtual environment involving 2 routes (Virtual Silcton, a desktop virtual environment; Weisberg, Schinazi, Newcombe, Shipley, & Epstein, 2014), we divided people into 3 groups based on their within-route and between-route pointing accuracy: integrators, non-integrators, and imprecise navigators. In Study 1, we found that imprecise navigators have lower spatial and verbal working memory, which may limit their ability to build accurate within-route representations. We also found that integrators maintain excellent memories of buildings as categorized by route membership, possibly supporting the idea of hierarchical representations of the environment. In Study 2, we assessed preferences regarding place and route learning using a virtual version of the rodent T-maze (Marchette, Bakker, & Shelton, 2011). Integrators found more goals overall, and although they did not have an overall preference for a place-based strategy, integrators who did choose a place-based strategy found more goals. The opposite was true for imprecise navigators. In Study 3, we added a monetary incentive for accuracy to evaluate whether increased motivation leads to fewer participants classified as imprecise, but found no significant change in the distribution of performance. These data have theoretical implications for the cognitive map hypothesis, and practical implications for improving navigational functioning. A one-size-fits-all approach may fit none. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent findings show that human adults can use slope to guide spatial search, although men significantly outperform women. To examine the sex difference more closely, we tested school-age children in a similar paradigm. Over four trials, children (n = 110) were disoriented and asked to locate a hidden target when the floor of a square enclosure was flat (control condition), sloped (slope condition), or sloped with a “ball drop demonstration,” intended to make the slope more salient (ball drop condition). In the presence of the slope cue, children performed above chance, although boys significantly outperformed girls. Boys were also more likely to notice the slope, and spontaneous slope perception was key to using the slope cue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the hippocampus is implicated in both spatial navigation and associative memory, very little is known about whether individual differences in the 2 domains covary. People who prefer to navigate using a hippocampal-dependent place strategy may show better performance on associative memory tasks than those who prefer a caudate-dependent response strategy (Bohbot, Gupta, Banner, & Dahmani, 2011), but not all studies suggest such an effect (Woollett & Maguire, 2009, 2012). Here we tested nonexpert young adults and found that preference for a place strategy positively correlated with spatial (object-location) associative memory performance but did not correlate with nonspatial (face-name) associative memory performance. Importantly, these correlations differed from each other, indicating that the relation between navigation strategy and associative memory is specific to the spatial domain. In addition, the 2 associative memory tasks significantly correlated, suggesting that object-location memory taps into processes relevant to both hippocampal-dependent navigation and nonspatial associative memory. Our findings also suggest that individual differences in spatial associative memory may account for some of the variance in navigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Individual differences in navigation stabilize at around 12 years of age. • Within-route judgements of direction stabilize before between-route judgements. • Before age 12, within-route judgements predict change in between-route judgments. • Perspective-taking and mental rotation do not predict children's navigation overtime. • Parent's small-scale spatial skills are not associated with children's navigation. Cross-sectional studies have suggested that the ability to form cognitive maps increases throughout childhood and reaches adult levels during early adolescence. However, adults show large individual differences in their ability to relate local routes to form a global map. Children also vary, but when does variation stabilize? We asked participants from a previously published cross-sectional study [ Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2018), Vol. 170, pp. 86–106] to return for a second session of testing 3 years later to examine whether longitudinal stability is more evident at older ages. The subsample of 50 of the original 105 participants available for retesting did not differ from the original sample on male–female ratio or Session 1 task performance. We reassessed performance on the Virtual Silcton navigation paradigm, the Spatial Orientation Test (SOT), and the Mental Rotation Test (MRT) and added parents' scores on the SOT and MRT at Timepoint 2. Our initial analyses of normative development aligned with prior cross-sectional findings; overall navigation performance reached adult levels of proficiency around 12 years of age. In addition, variation in route integration abilities, as measured by between-route pointing, stabilized around 12 years of age; that is, longitudinal stability was higher in the older cohort than in the younger cohort. The same pattern appeared for the MRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Developmental research beginning in the 1970s has suggested that children’s ability to form cognitive maps reaches adult levels during early adolescence. However, this research has used a variety of testing procedures, often in real-world environments, which have been difficult to share widely across labs and to use to probe components of mapping, individual differences in success, and possible mechanisms of development and reasons for individual variation. In this study, we charted the development of cognitive mapping using a virtual navigation paradigm, Silcton, that allows for testing samples of substantial size in a uniform way and in which adults show marked individual differences in the formation of accurate route representations and/or in route integration. The current study tested children aged between 8 and 16 years. In terms of components of normative development, children’s performance reached adult levels of proficiency at around age 12, but route representation progressed significantly more quickly than route integration. In terms of individual differences, by age 12 children could be grouped into the same three categories evident in adults: imprecise navigators (who form only imprecise ideas of routes), non-integrators (who represent routes more accurately but are imprecise in relating two routes), and integrators (who relate the two routes and, thus, form cognitive maps). Thus, individual differences likely originate during childhood. In terms of correlates, perspective-taking skills predicted navigation performance better than mental rotation skills, in accord with the view that perspective taking operates on extrinsic spatial representations, whereas mental rotation taps intrinsic spatial representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]