Why size counts: children's spatial reorientation in large and small enclosures

Abstract

When mobile organisms are spatially disoriented, for instance by rapid repetitive movement, they must re-establish orientation. Past research has shown that the geometry of enclosing spaces is consistently used for reorientation by a wide variety of species, but that non-geometric features are not always used. Based on these findings, some investigators have postulated a species-universal 'geometric module' that is transcended by the acquisition of spatial language at 6 years. This conclusion has been challenged, however, by findings that children as young as 18 months actually do use features to reorient in larger enclosures than those used in the original experiments. The reason for the room size effect is explored here in five experiments. Collectively, the data on age at which features are first used point to the importance of both restriction of movement in the small space and the fact that features are closer in the small space. In addition, success is seen at younger ages when the target object is adjacent to the feature. These results favor an adaptive combination model of spatial reorientation over a 'module-plus-language' view.

Psychology of spatial cognition

“…45,52 One aspect that has proven crucial in modulating the encoding of nongeometric information in enclosed spaces, which was first observed in infants, is the size of the enclosure itself: when reorientation takes place in a small room, rotational errors are observed, the animal disregarding the presence of nongeometric information, but this is not the case in a larger room. 45,53 Similar experiments in animals confirmed the result, 54,55 suggesting that size differences might be attributed to better encoding of landmark information at a distance in larger enclosures. At the same time these studies allowed to disentangle the role of metric (i.e., long vs short wall) and sense properties (i.e., left vs right), which would be differently accessible, visual angle being equal, in the different sized enclosures.…”

Experience and geometry: controlled-rearing studies with chicks

“…At test, after the chicks had reached learning criterion, the landmarks were dislocated according to an aYne transformation, so that chicks were faced with contradictory geometric and non-geometric information. Again, no diVerence between rectangular-and circular-reared chicks was observed even though enclosures of diVerent sizes were used to favour the encoding of either geometric (smallsized enclosure) or non-geometric (large-sized enclosure) information (see Chiandetti et al 2007;Chiandetti and Vallortigara 2008b;Learmonth et al 2001Learmonth et al , 2008.…”

“…Some recent evidence suggests that the size of the experimental space may aVect the type of information, geometric and non-geometric, which children (Learmonth et al 2001(Learmonth et al , 2008 and animals (Sovrano et al 2005Chiandetti et al 2007;Vallortigara et al 2004) preferentially use to reorient. Large environments favour the use of featural information, whereas small environments favour the use of geometric information (see for a review Chiandetti and Vallortigara 2008b).…”

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

“…First, even the revised modularity theory does not deal with evidence that has been around for over a decade, showing that use of geometry versus features varies with the size of an enclosed space. While geometric cues generally account for search in small enclosures, featural cues are also used in large enclosures and are even preferred in conflict tests (children, Learmonth et al, 2002;Learmonth et al, 2001;Learmonth, Newcombe, Sheridan, & Jones, 2008;adults, Ratliff & Newcombe, 2008;fish, Sovrano, Bisazza, & Vallortigara, 2007;chicks, Sovrano, Bisazza, & Vallortigara, 2005). One possible explanation for effects of enclosure size is that, for smaller enclosures, a greater portion of the space can be seen from a single viewing position, increasing the likelihood that the overall shape of a space will be encoded, so that its geometry is revealed, and can be used in processing (Sovrano & Vallortigara, 2006).…”