Spatial integration under contextual control in a virtual environment

Molet, Mikaël; Gambet, Boris; Bugallo, Mehdi; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2012.01.003

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has demonstrated a role for spatial context (i.e., where) in setting the occasion for a visuomotor association in rats (Eacott, Easton, & Zinkivskay, 2005), bees (T. S. Collett, Fauria, Dale, & Baron, 1997; see Zhang, Si, & Pahl, 2012, for a review), ants (Wehner & Srinivasan, 1981), and humans (Molet, Gambet, Bugallo, & Miller, 2012). Few studies have investigated how a context or stimulus can set the occasion for the correct spatial response relative to a landmark.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Occasion setting during a spatial-search task with pigeons.

Leising¹,

Hall²,

Wolf³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A spatial task was used to investigate if a stimulus could set the occasion for responding to a landmark. Pigeons were trained with a positive occasion setter (OS; a colored background display) signaling the contingency between a landmark (LM; visual patterned stimulus) and the location of a rewarded response. The two most common tests of an OS (transfer tests and post-training extinction of the OS) were then conducted. In Experiment 1, two occasion setting pairs were trained (+←XA/YB→+/A-/B-) with unique spatial relationships to a reinforced goal location. Transfer tests (XB- and YA-) revealed more responding to a landmark when paired with the same OS from training (e.g., XA) than on transfer tests, which was greater still than landmark-only trials (A-). Three pigeons demonstrated good spatial control of responding by the LM on transfer tests. In Experiment 2, the contingency and spatial relationship (e.g., left or right) between LM A and the goal were signaled by the OS (+←XA/YA→+/+←ZB/C→+/A-/B-). LM C was trained without an OS to assess the role of training history during transfer. Transfer tests again indicated an OS could facilitate responding and the LM controlled the location of responding. Training history affected spatial control, but not facilitation, by LM C. Lastly, post-training extinction of X had no effect on facilitation or spatial control during subsequent XA trials. These experiments are the first to evaluate conditional control of spatial information by landmarks using both of the standard tests for occasion setting.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Occasion setting during a spatial-search task with pigeons.

Leising¹,

Hall²,

Wolf³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They suggest that given the opportunity to encode two spatial memories, neither integration nor selection of a more precise memory occur, instead only one memory is exclusively relied upon (i.e., encoded or retrieved). This finding is particularly interesting in light of contrasting reports of integration and non-integration in the literature (Rubin & Wallace, 1989;Jones, 1987), especially within the field of spatial cognition (Molet, Bugallo, & Gambet, 2011;Molet, Gambet, Bugallo, & Miller, 2012;Alvarez & Cavanagh, 2004;Baguley et al, 2006;Clark et al, 2013). Possible accounts for why two spatial memories do not surpass performance of a single memory are discussed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Spatial memory exclusivity: Examining performance of multiple object-location memories

Dunn

Baguley

Dunn

2017

Spatial Cognition & Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on location memory suggests that integration of separate sources of information does not occur when recalling the position of a common target object. In a relatively simple task, previous research shows no observable benefit from holding two spatial memories compared to one. It has been suggested that exclusively utilising only one of two memories may account for this finding. The current research tests the robustness of this idea as well as an alternative in the form of an averaging approach to combining spatial information. The results suggest that exclusivity may not be the best account for multiple spatial memory performance. Rather, memories may well combine in a manner similar to averaging, where information is available for each memory but combined in a non-beneficial way.

show abstract

“…Examples include the learning of vector information from a single landmark and competition between landmarks, with greater weighting of landmarks closer to the goal than those farther away (Spetch, 1995; for reviews, see also Cheng & Spetch, 1998; Spetch & Kelly, 2006). On the other hand, humans use multiple landmarks differently from other species: For example, Blaisdell and Cook (2005; see also Sawa, Leising, & Blaisdell, 2005) found that pigeons integrated multiple sets of spatial relationships—for example, between Landmark A and Landmark B and between Landmark B and a specific goal—when later tested on their ability to locate the goal using only a single landmark (Landmark A), whereas humans did not integrate such relationships (Sturz, Bodily, & Katz, 2006; Sturz, Bodily, Katz, & Kelly, 2009; see also Molet, Gambet, Bugallo, & Miller, 2012; Molet, Jozefowiez, & Miller, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of redundant sets of landmark information by humans (Homo sapiens) in a goal-searching task in an open field and on a computer screen.

Sekiguchi

Ushitani

Sawa

2018

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landmark-based goal-searching tasks that were similar to those for pigeons (Ushitani & Jitsumori, 2011) were provided to human participants to investigate whether they could learn and use multiple sources of spatial information that redundantly indicate the position of a hidden target in both an open field (Experiment 1) and on a computer screen (Experiments 2 and 3). During the training in each experiment, participants learned to locate a target in 1 of 25 objects arranged in a 5 × 5 grid, using two differently colored, arrow-shaped (Experiments 1 and 2) or asymmetrically shaped (Experiment 3) landmarks placed adjacent to the goal and pointing to the goal location. The absolute location and directions of the landmarks varied across trials, but the constant configuration of the goal and the landmarks enabled participants to find the goal using both global configural information and local vector information (pointing to the goal by each individual landmark). On subsequent test trials, the direction was changed for one of the landmarks to conflict with the global configural information. Results of Experiment 1 indicated that participants used vector information from a single landmark but not configural information. Further examinations revealed that the use of global (metric) information was enhanced remarkably by goal searching with nonarrow-shaped landmarks on the computer monitor (Experiment 3) but much less so with arrow-shaped landmarks (Experiment 2). The General Discussion focuses on a comparison between humans in the current study and pigeons in the previous study. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Spatial integration under contextual control in a virtual environment

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Occasion setting during a spatial-search task with pigeons.

Occasion setting during a spatial-search task with pigeons.

Spatial memory exclusivity: Examining performance of multiple object-location memories

Use of redundant sets of landmark information by humans (Homo sapiens) in a goal-searching task in an open field and on a computer screen.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About