Social targets improve body-based and environment-based strategies during spatial navigation

Abstract

Encoding the position of another person in space is vital for everyday life. Nevertheless, little is known about the specific navigational strategies associated with encoding the position of another person in the wider spatial environment. We asked two groups of participants to learn the location of a target (person or object) during active navigation, while optic flow information, a landmark, or both optic flow information and a landmark were available in a virtual environment. Whereas optic flow information is used for body-based encoding, such as the simulation of motor movements, landmarks are used to form an abstract, disembodied representation of the environment. During testing, we passively moved participants through virtual space, and compared their abilities to correctly decide whether the non-visible target was before or behind them. Using psychometric functions and the Bayes Theorem, we show that both groups assigned similar weights to body-based and environment-based cues in the condition, where both cue types were available. However, the group who was provided with a person as target showed generally reduced position errors compared to the group who was provided with an object as target. We replicated this effect in a second study with novel participants. This indicates a social advantage in spatial encoding, with facilitated processing of both body-based and environment-based cues during spatial navigation when the position of a person is encoded. This may underlie our critical ability to make accurate distance judgments during social interactions, for example, during fight or flight responses.

Different approaches to test orientation of self in space: comparison of a 2D pen-and-paper test and a 3D real-world pointing task

“…Multiple factors such as subject age [ 27 ] or sex [ 28 ] can determine test performance with some developmental studies also showing effects of exercise [ 29 ], childhood hobbies [ 30 ] or other early-life activities [ 31 ]. In studies on targeted locomotion, higher cognitive social inter-personal aspects of interaction with the environment [ 32 , 33 ] and an individual disposition could be shown to affect results. Wayfinding as both a navigation as well as a decision task is also a social activity and can be influenced by group phenomena, even when other people are not directly present [ 34 ].…”

Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory for Body Parts: A Virtual Reality Study

“…Literature has predominantly focused on objects as landmarks or spatial targets ( Byrne et al, 2007 ). However, in our social environment, encoding another person’s spatial position is equally crucial for daily life and navigating our surrounding ( Kuehn, Chen, Geise, Oltmer, & Wolbers, 2018 ). In these digital social spaces, we may encounter individuals embodying avatars, experienced from either the 1PP or the 3PP.…”

Impaired remapping of social relationships in older adults

“…The hippocampus and associated networks in the frontal cortex and limbic system may also be involved in mediating plasticity and stability of social hierarchies 22 , 28 . In addition, analogous to hippocampal place cells, which represent aspects of the physical environment 29 , 30 , hippocampal social-place-cells have been linked to identifying a person’s position in space 31 – 33 , which may facilitate spatial navigation 21 . The hippocampal-based cognitive mapping framework was recently supported by a study of Park et al showing that similar to physical space, social knowledge is encoded as a grid-like representation of a two-dimensional cognitive map mediated by the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus 34 .…”

“…We used VR to test the following hypotheses: (i) Do participants modify the position of people in ‘social space’ dependent on the behavior of the avatar (updating (consistent) versus remapping (conflicting))?, (ii) Do older adults show higher affiliation towards avatars compared to younger adults (social bias)?, (iii) Do older adults show less flexible behavior when social interaction partners change their behavior (reduced remapping)? Testing these hypotheses in a virtual environment allows us to gain critical insights regarding the cognitive mechanisms involved in the plasticity and rigidity of social interactions and changes in social behavior that occur with increasing age 20 , 21 .…”