A cognitive map is a mental representation of space that aids in spatial navigation and includes both spatial and temporal characteristics. Research indicates that individuals utilize temporal intervals to express spatial distances, reflecting spatiotemporal navigation traits. However, cognitive maps exhibit flexibility and distortion. Subjective perception of time, as a human cognitive process, can easily influence cognitive maps, leading to cognitive distortion in spatial information. To provide a comprehensive view of navigation, the attributes of landmarks must also be considered. Previous research has demonstrated that landmarks influence individuals' perception of time. Consequently, we hypothesize that environmental landmarks may interact with spatiotemporal, thereby impacting the processing of spatial information in cognitive maps. This study aims to elucidate the influence of spatiotemporal and landmarks during navigation in order to explore their effects on cognitive maps.
The study consisted of two experiments. Experiment 1 aimed to investigate the interaction between spatiotemporal and landmarks in the formation of cognitive maps. The Path Integration Paradigm was employed to assess participants' ability to construct cognitive maps. A total of 34 participants completed the Path Judgment Task and the Sketch Map Task as part of the experiment. The experimental design followed a 2 (spatiotemporal span: 50s wayfinding vs. 100s wayfinding) * 2 (landmarks: landmarks vs. non-landmarks) mixed model, with spatiotemporal span as the between-subjects variable, landmarks as the within-subjects variable, and the results of the path judgment task and the sketch map task as the dependent variables. The results of experiment 1 revealed that in the 100s wayfinding condition, accuracy of distance judgments decreased, while the accuracy of turning angle judgments improved. In the presence of environmental landmarks, individuals tended to overestimate path distance under prolonged perception conditions, while exhibiting minimal errors in the accuracy of spatial information judgment. No effect of spatiotemporal perception on the accuracy of cognitive map making was observed in experiment 1.
Experiment 2 provided further insight into the impact of spatiotemporal perception on spatial information in cognitive maps. The experimental setup paralleled that of experiment 1, with 35 subjects recruited to participate. The experiment utilized a 2 (spatiotemporal span: pause vs. non-pause time) * 2 (landmarks: landmarks vs. non-landmarks) mixed model, with spatiotemporal perception as the between-subjects variable, landmarks as the within-subjects variable, and the results of the path judgment task and sketch map task as the dependent variables. The results of experiment 2 indicated that spatial perception did not significantly affect the judgment of turning angles. However, path judgment errors increased with navigation duration, and landmarks interfered with judgment.
This study explores the impact of spatiotemporal factors on cognitive map construction after individuals familiarize themselves with new environments. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of spatiotemporal on the processing of spatial information in cognitive maps during navigation. The results unveiled a correlation between spatial information processing and spatiotemporal during the construction of cognitive maps, with individuals utilizing navigation duration as a basis for estimating path distance. The accuracy of path judgments improved with longer spatiotemporal span, while the accuracy of turning angle decreased with longer spatiotemporal spans. Moreover, landmark enhanced spatiotemporal perception, enhancing path judgment accuracy but impeding turning angle judgment accuracy. These findings further indicate that distinct processing mechanisms underlie straight-line and turning processing in spatial information. Straight-line information processing is influenced by spatiotemporal perception modulated by speed perception, whereas turn processing is influenced by temporal perception. The comprehensive spatial information processing and simulation results support the Tolman-Eichenbaum Machine (TEM) model of spatial information in cognitive maps and provide direct evidence for the mechanism of cognitive map construction. The research focuses on the spatiotemporal attributes in constructing cognitive maps and broadens the scope of cognitive map research, thereby aiding researchers to understand human spatial navigation behavior.
Key words
cognitive map /
spatiotemporal /
landmarks /
spatial navigation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 过继成思, 黄建平, 宛小昂. (2019). 目标预知对路径整合的影响. 心理学报, 51(2), 188-195.
[2] 彭聃龄. (2019). 普通心理学 . 北京师范大学出版社..
[3] 吴佳鑫. (2022). 移动导航对空间知识学习和寻路绩效的影响及个体差异研究 (硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
[4] 吴文雅, 王亮. (2023). 认知地图及其内在机制. 心理科学进展, 31(10), 1856-1872.
[5] 赵悦彤. (2021). 寻路策略与空间导航的关系及寻路策略的影响因素 (博士学位论文). 东北师范大学, 长春.
[6] Arnold A. E. G. F., Iaria G., & Ekstrom A. D. (2016). Mental simulation of routes during navigation involves adaptive temporal compression. Cognition, 157, 14-23.
[7] Bonasia K., Blommesteyn J., & Moscovitch M. (2016). Memory and navigation: Compression of space varies with route length and turns. Hippocampus, 26(1), 9-12.
[8] Bonato M., Zorzi M., & Umiltà C. (2012). When time is space: Evidence for a mental time line. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2257-2273.
[9] Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28.
[10] Brunec I. K., Javadi A. H., Zisch F. E. L., & Spiers H. J. (2017). Contracted time and expanded space: The impact of circumnavigation on judgements of space and time. Cognition, 166, 425-432.
[11] Brunec I. K., Ozubko J. D., Ander T., Guo R. R., Moscovitch M., & Barense M. D. (2020). Turns during navigation act as boundaries that enhance spatial memory and expand time estimation. Neuropsychologia, 141, Article 107437.
[12] Burgess N., Becker S., King J. A., & O'Keefe J. (2001). Memory for events and their spatial context: Models and experiments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 356(1413), 1493-1503.
[13] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[14] Harootonian S. K., Ekstrom A. D., & Wilson R. C. (2022). Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction. PLoS Computational Biology, 18(2), Article e1009222.
[15] Hegarty M., Richardson A. E., Montello D. R., Lovelace K., & Subbiah I. (2002). Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30(5), 425-447.
[16] Ishikawa, T., & Zhou, Y. R. (2020). Improving cognitive mapping by training for people with a poor sense of direction. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), Article 39.
[17] Ivanenko Y., Grasso R., Israël I., & Berthoz A. (1997). Spatial orientation in humans: Perception of angular whole-body displacements in two-dimensional trajectories. Experimental Brain Research, 117(3), 419-427.
[18] Jones, B., & Huang, Y. L. (1982). Space-time dependencies in psychophysical judgment of extent and duration: Algebraic models of the tau and kappa effects. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 128-142.
[19] Kaski D., Quadir S., Nigmatullina Y., Malhotra P. A., Bronstein A. M., & Seemungal B. M. (2016). Temporoparietal encoding of space and time during vestibular-guided orientation. Brain, 139(2), 392-403.
[20] Kline, S. R., & Reed, C. L. (2013). Contextual influences of dimension, speed, and direction of motion on subjective time perception. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 75(1), 161-167.
[21] Lew, A. R. (2011). Looking beyond the boundaries: Time to put landmarks back on the cognitive map? Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 484-507.
[22] Manning C., Trevelyan Thomas R., & Braddick O. (2018). Can speed be judged independent of direction? Journal of Vision, 18(6), Article 15.
[23] Mate J., Pires A. C., Campoy G., & Estaún S. (2009). Estimating the duration of visual stimuli in motion environments. Psicológica, 30(2), 287-300.
[24] Montello D. R.,& Xiao, D. (2011). Linguistic and cultural universality of the concept of sense-of-direction. In: M. Egenhofer, N. Giudice, R. Moratz, & M. Worboys (Eds.), Spatial information theory (pp. 264-265). Springer.
[25] Poucet B., Sargolini F., Song E. Y., Hangya B., Fox S., & Muller R. U. (2014). Independence of landmark and selfmotion-guided navigation: A different role for grid cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1635), Article 20130370.
[26] Riemer M., Achtzehn J., Kuehn E., & Wolbers T. (2022). Cross-dimensional interference between time and distance during spatial navigation is mediated by speed representations in intraparietal sulcus and area hMT. NeuroImage, 257, Article 119336.
[27] Riemer M., Shine J. P., & Wolbers T. (2018). On the (a)symmetry between the perception of time and space in large-scale environments. Hippocampus, 28(8), 539-548.
[28] Teghil A., Boccia M., Bonavita A., & Guariglia C. (2019). Temporal features of spatial knowledge: Representing order and duration of topographical information. Behavioural Brain Research, 376, Article 112218.
[29] Unuma H., Hasegawa H., & Kellman P. J. (2010). Spatiotemporal integration and contour interpolation revealed by a dot localization task with serial presentation paradigm. Japanese Psychological Research, 52(4), 268-280.
[30] van Rijn, H. (2014). It's time to take the psychology of biological time into account: Speed of driving affects a trip's subjective duration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1028.
[31] Weisberg S. M., Schinazi V. R., Newcombe N. S., Shipley T. F., & Epstein R. A. (2014). Variations in cognitive maps: Understanding individual differences in navigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(3), 669-682.
[32] Whittington J. C. R., Muller T. H., Mark S., Chen G. F., Barry C., Burgess N., & Behrens, T. E. J. (2020). The Tolman-Eichenbaum machine: Unifying space and relational memory through generalization in the hippocampal formation. Cell, 183(5), 1249-1263.
[33] Wolbers, T., & Hegarty, M. (2010). What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(3), 138-146.
PDF(2985 KB)
