Search

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]

Spatial thinking skills are associated with performance, persistence, and achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) school subjects. Because STEM knowledge and skills are integral to developing a well-trained workforce within and beyond STEM, spatial skills have become a major focus of cognitive, developmental, and educational research. However, these efforts are greatly hampered by the current lack of access to reliable, valid, and well-normed spatial tests. Although there are hundreds of spatial tests, they are often hard to access and use, and information about their psychometric properties is frequently lacking. Additional problems include (1) substantial disagreement about what different spatial tests measure—even two tests with similar names may measure very different constructs; (2) the inability to measure some STEM-relevant spatial skills by any existing tests; and (3) many tests only being available for specific age groups. The first part of this report delineates these problems, as documented in a series of structured and open-ended interviews and surveys with colleagues. The second part outlines a roadmap for addressing the problems. We present possibilities for developing shared testing systems that would allow researchers to test many participants through the internet. We discuss technological innovations, such as virtual reality, which could facilitate the testing of navigation and other spatial skills. Developing a bank of testing resources will empower researchers and educators to explore and support spatial thinking in their disciplines, as well as drive the development of a comprehensive and coherent theoretical understanding of spatial thinking. [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 thinking requires reliable and valid measures of individual differences in various component skills. Spatial perspective taking (PT)—the ability to represent viewpoints different from one's own—is one kind of spatial skill that is especially relevant to navigation. This study had two goals. First, the psychometric properties of four PT tests were examined: Four Mountains Task (FMT), Spatial Orientation Task (SOT), Perspective‐Taking Task for Adults (PTT‐A), and Photographic Perspective‐Taking Task (PPTT). Using item response theory (IRT), item difficulty, discriminability, and efficiency of item information functions were evaluated. Second, the relation of PT scores to general intelligence, working memory, and mental rotation (MR) was assessed. All tasks showed good construct validity except for FMT. PPTT tapped a wide range of PT ability, with maximum measurement precision at average ability. PTT‐A captured a lower range of ability. Although SOT contributed less measurement information than other tasks, it did well across a wide range of PT ability. After controlling for general intelligence and working memory, original and IRT‐refined versions of PT tasks were each related to MR. PTT‐A and PPTT showed relatively more divergent validity from MR than SOT. Tests of dimensionality indicated that PT tasks share one common PT dimension, with secondary task‐specific factors also impacting the measurement of individual differences in performance. Advantages and disadvantages of a hybrid PT test that includes a combination of items across tasks are discussed. This study examined the psychometric properties of four tests of spatial perspective‐taking using item response theory, as well as relations with general intelligence, working memory, and mental rotation. Three showed good construct validity. Tests shared a common dimension, with secondary task‐specific factors. [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]