Reorientation in a rhombic environment: No evidence for an encapsulated geometric module

Hupbach, Almut; Nadel, Lynn

doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.04.003

Cited by 98 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, according to Gallistel's (1990) definition of geometry, they should be able to use lengths and angles, as well as distances and directions; all of this should be observed, irrespective of the symmetry of the configuration. And yet, these predictions have not been confirmed (Gouteux & Spelke, 2001;Hupbach & Nadel, 2005;Lee et al, 2012;Lew et al, 2010), leading to the recent reformulations of the geometric module with revised definitions of geometry.…”

Section: Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first finding prompting this distinction came from Hupbach and Nadel (2005), who found that 2-and 3-year-olds failed to learn a target location in a rhombic arena, whether a distinctive featural cue was added or not. Because two of the angles in a rhombus are acute and two angles are obtuse, this finding suggested a difficulty in using angle.…”

Section: Modularity Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate the range of theories proposed to explain findings on the use of geometry in reorientation. We consider five key approaches and models associated with them and, in the course of reviewing each approach, five key issues. First, we take up modularity theory itself, as recently revised by Lee and Spelke (Cognitive Psychology, 61, 152-176, 2010a; Experimental Brain Research, 206, 179-188, 2010b). In this context, we discuss issues concerning the basic distinction between geometry and features. Second, we review the view-matching approach (Stürzl, Cheung, Cheng, & Zeil, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 1-14, 2008). In this context, we highlight the possibility of cross-species differences, as well as commonalities. Third, we review an associative theory (Miller & Shettleworth, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 191-212, 2007; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 419-422, 2008). In this context, we focus on phenomena of cue competition. Fourth, we take up adaptive combination theory (Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2006). In this context, we focus on discussing development and the effects of experience. Fifth, we examine various neurally based approaches, including frameworks proposed by Doeller and Burgess (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5909-5914, 2008; Doeller, King, & Burgess, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5915-5920, 2008) and by Sheynikhovich, Chavarriaga, Strösslin, Arleo, and Gerstner (Psychological Review, 116, 540-566, 2009). In this context, we examine the issue of the neural substrates of spatial navigation. We conclude that none of these approaches can account for all of the known phenomena concerning the use of geometry in reorientation and clarify what the challenges are for each approach.

show abstract

Section: Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Modularity Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, according to Spelke et al (2010), other geometric properties, such as angles, are not included in this core system, despite angle being a central Euclidean property. This assumption allows them to explain why the ability to use angle information was shown at a later age than distance and left/right sense (Hupbach & Nadel, 2005). Furthermore, this theory attributes the failure of young children to use certain horizontal distance cues to the lack of threedimensional borders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, young children can use both geometric and nongeometric information to reorient in a larger space (Learmonth, Nadel, & Newcombe, 2002;Learmonth, Newcombe, & Huttenlocher, 2001;Learmonth, Newcombe, Sheridan, & Jones, 2008) and in certain situations, the use of featural cues was observed in 1.5-to 2-year-old toddlers (Nardini, Atkinson, & Burgess, 2008). Additionally, geometric information such as corner angles in a rhombus enclosure could not be used by children until 4 years of age (Hupbach & Nadel, 2005), which is later than the age at which children can use the geometric shape of a rectangular room to orient.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Look up: Human adults use vertical height cues in reorientation

Mou

2016

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous studies have shown that people and other animals readily use horizontal geometry (distance and directional information) to reorient, and these cues sometimes dominate over other cues when reorienting in navigable environments. Our study investigated whether horizontal cues (distance/angle) dominate over vertical cues (wall height) when they are in conflict. Adult participants learned two locations (opposite corners) in either a rectangular room (with distance information) or a rhombus room (with angle information). Both training rooms had 2 opposite high walls as height cues. On each trial, participants were disoriented and then asked to locate the correct corners. In testing, the rooms were modified to provide (a) distance or angle cues only, (b) height cues only, and (c) both height and horizontal cues in conflict. Participants located the correct corners successfully with horizontal (distance/angle) or height cues alone. On conflict tests, participants did not show preference for the horizontal information (distance/angle) over the height cues. The results are discussed in terms of the geometric module theory and the adaptive combination theory.

show abstract

“…However, when a feature wall is added, as in the second rhombus, then it is possible for participants to use the feature wall to disambiguate the two equal angle corners (O F from O or A F from A). From Hupbach and Nadel's (2005) study, children start using the angle information as well as the feature information at 4 years of age. equal obtuse angles and two equal acute angles.…”

Section: Not All Kinds Of Geometry Are Used Early In Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Domain-General Learning or Domain-Specific Constraints?

Sloutsky¹

2007

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reorientation in a rhombic environment: No evidence for an encapsulated geometric module

Cited by 98 publications

References 22 publications

25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective

25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective

Look up: Human adults use vertical height cues in reorientation

Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Domain-General Learning or Domain-Specific Constraints?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About