Working memory in spatial knowledge acquisition: Differences in encoding processes and sense of direction

Abstract

This study examined how different components of working memory are involved in spatial knowledge acquisition for good and poor sense-of-direction (SOD) people. We employed a dual-task method, and asked participants to learn routes from videos with verbal, visual and spatial interference tasks and without any interference. Results showed that participants with a good SOD encoded landmarks and routes verbally and spatially, and integrated knowledge about them into survey knowledge with the support of all three components of working memory. In contrast, participants with a poor SOD encoded landmarks only verbally, and tended to rely on the visual component of working memory in the processing of route knowledge. Based on the results, a possible model for explaining the differences in spatial knowledge acquisition and SOD was proposed.

Navigating by Design: Effects of Individual Differences and Navigation Modality on Spatial Memory Acquisition

“…G-SOD participants exhibited better overall performance across all four dependent measures, statistically significant differences emerged primarily in tasks assessing route knowledge. This aligns with findings from previous research and daily observations of superior wayfinding abilities among individuals with G-SOD ( Burte & Montello, 2017 ; Wen et al, 2011 ; Wen et al, 2013 ).…”

“…These findings are generally consistent with previous studies that have employed spatial ability as an independent variable, wherein participants with good spatial ability (G-SOD) consistently outperformed those with poor spatial ability (P-SOD) on spatial memory tasks ( Burte & Montello, 2017 ; Wen et al, 2011 ; Wen et al, 2013 ). According to the three stages of spatial knowledge acquisition proposed by Siegel and White ( 1975 ), the tasks selected in our study effectively captured distinct levels of spatial knowledge: landmark and route knowledge.…”

Event memory uniquely predicts memory for large-scale space

“…If the working memory composite variable is broken up and the three span tasks are entered into the regression shown in Table 4 separately, the spatial span task does predict unique variance in spatial memory as measured by DI, β = .28, t(196) = −2.48, p < .05. This is consistent with evidence that forming large-scale spatial memories from route experience relies mainly on aspects of working memory that are specific to spatial processing (Labate et al, 2014;Wen, Ishikawa, & Sato, 2011.…”

Using a picture (or a thousand words) for supporting spatial knowledge of a complex virtual environment

“…One interpretation for this effect is that generating external representations of one's spatial knowledge is only useful if the external representation is accurate. This interpretation is consistent with the large individual differences in navigation behavior reported generally (Weisberg et al, 2014(Weisberg et al, , 2018 and with experiments showing that verbal and visuospatial working memory may (Menghetti et al, 2021;Wen et al, 2011) or may not (Blacker et al, 2017;Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016) play distinct roles in supporting distinct aspects of spatial navigation behavior. Individuals with low spatial thinking skills who have difficulty learning spatial environments to begin with may not be able to create accurate external representations from their inaccurate mental representations and will likely not be able to use their maps to improve.…”