Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The effects of spatial stability and cue type o...

Electronic data

  • buckley2021

    Final published version, 1.54 MB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning : Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems. / Buckley, Matthew G.; Austen, Joe M.; Myles, Liam A. M.; Smith, Shamus; Ihssen, Niklas; Lew, Adina; McGregor, Anthony.

In: Cognition, Vol. 214, 104802, 30.09.2021.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Buckley, M. G., Austen, J. M., Myles, L. A. M., Smith, S., Ihssen, N., Lew, A., & McGregor, A. (2021). The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems. Cognition, 214, [104802]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104802

Vancouver

Author

Buckley, Matthew G. ; Austen, Joe M. ; Myles, Liam A. M. ; Smith, Shamus ; Ihssen, Niklas ; Lew, Adina ; McGregor, Anthony. / The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning : Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems. In: Cognition. 2021 ; Vol. 214.

Bibtex

@article{7bc08a24cf4d4cbb851af2abf1f808f9,
title = "The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning: Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems",
abstract = "Some theories of spatial learning predict that associative rules apply under only limited circumstances. For example, learning based on a boundary has been claimed to be immune to cue competition effects because boundary information is the basis for the formation of a cognitive map, whilst landmark learning does not involve cognitive mapping. This is referred to as the cue type hypothesis. However, it has also been claimed that cue stability is a prerequisite for the formation of a cognitive map, meaning that whichever cue type was perceived as stable would enter a cognitive map and thus be immune to cue competition, while unstable cues will be subject to cue competition, regardless of cue type. In experiments 1 and 2 we manipulated the stability of boundary and landmark cues when learning the location of two hidden goals. One goal location was constant with respect to the boundary, and the other constant with respect to the landmark cues. For both cue types, the presence of distal orientation cues provided directional information. For half the participants the landmark cues were unstable relative to the boundary and orientation cues, whereas for the remainder of the participants the boundary was unstable relative to landmarks and orientation cues. In a second stage of training, all cues remained stable so that both goal locations could be learned with respect to both landmark and boundary information. According to the cue type hypothesis, boundary information should block learning about landmarks regardless of cue stability. According to the cue stability hypothesis, however, landmarks should block learning about the boundary when the landmarks appear stable relative to the boundary. Regardless of cue type or stability the results showed reciprocal blocking, contrary to both formulations of incidental cognitive mapping. Experiment 3 established that the results of Experiments 1 and 2 could not be explained in terms of difficulty in learning certain locations with respect to different cue types. In a final experiment, following training in which both landmarks and boundary cues signalled two goal locations, a new goal location was established with respect to the landmark cues, before testing with the boundary, which had never been used to define the new goal location. The results of this novel test of the interaction between boundary and landmark cues indicated that new learning with respect to the landmark had a profound effect on navigation with respect to the boundary, counter to the predictions of incidental cognitive mapping of boundaries.",
keywords = "Navigation, Boundaries, Landmarks, Blocking, Memory systems, Geometric module",
author = "Buckley, {Matthew G.} and Austen, {Joe M.} and Myles, {Liam A. M.} and Shamus Smith and Niklas Ihssen and Adina Lew and Anthony McGregor",
year = "2021",
month = sep,
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104802",
language = "English",
volume = "214",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effects of spatial stability and cue type on spatial learning

T2 - Implications for theories of parallel spatial memory systems

AU - Buckley, Matthew G.

AU - Austen, Joe M.

AU - Myles, Liam A. M.

AU - Smith, Shamus

AU - Ihssen, Niklas

AU - Lew, Adina

AU - McGregor, Anthony

PY - 2021/9/30

Y1 - 2021/9/30

N2 - Some theories of spatial learning predict that associative rules apply under only limited circumstances. For example, learning based on a boundary has been claimed to be immune to cue competition effects because boundary information is the basis for the formation of a cognitive map, whilst landmark learning does not involve cognitive mapping. This is referred to as the cue type hypothesis. However, it has also been claimed that cue stability is a prerequisite for the formation of a cognitive map, meaning that whichever cue type was perceived as stable would enter a cognitive map and thus be immune to cue competition, while unstable cues will be subject to cue competition, regardless of cue type. In experiments 1 and 2 we manipulated the stability of boundary and landmark cues when learning the location of two hidden goals. One goal location was constant with respect to the boundary, and the other constant with respect to the landmark cues. For both cue types, the presence of distal orientation cues provided directional information. For half the participants the landmark cues were unstable relative to the boundary and orientation cues, whereas for the remainder of the participants the boundary was unstable relative to landmarks and orientation cues. In a second stage of training, all cues remained stable so that both goal locations could be learned with respect to both landmark and boundary information. According to the cue type hypothesis, boundary information should block learning about landmarks regardless of cue stability. According to the cue stability hypothesis, however, landmarks should block learning about the boundary when the landmarks appear stable relative to the boundary. Regardless of cue type or stability the results showed reciprocal blocking, contrary to both formulations of incidental cognitive mapping. Experiment 3 established that the results of Experiments 1 and 2 could not be explained in terms of difficulty in learning certain locations with respect to different cue types. In a final experiment, following training in which both landmarks and boundary cues signalled two goal locations, a new goal location was established with respect to the landmark cues, before testing with the boundary, which had never been used to define the new goal location. The results of this novel test of the interaction between boundary and landmark cues indicated that new learning with respect to the landmark had a profound effect on navigation with respect to the boundary, counter to the predictions of incidental cognitive mapping of boundaries.

AB - Some theories of spatial learning predict that associative rules apply under only limited circumstances. For example, learning based on a boundary has been claimed to be immune to cue competition effects because boundary information is the basis for the formation of a cognitive map, whilst landmark learning does not involve cognitive mapping. This is referred to as the cue type hypothesis. However, it has also been claimed that cue stability is a prerequisite for the formation of a cognitive map, meaning that whichever cue type was perceived as stable would enter a cognitive map and thus be immune to cue competition, while unstable cues will be subject to cue competition, regardless of cue type. In experiments 1 and 2 we manipulated the stability of boundary and landmark cues when learning the location of two hidden goals. One goal location was constant with respect to the boundary, and the other constant with respect to the landmark cues. For both cue types, the presence of distal orientation cues provided directional information. For half the participants the landmark cues were unstable relative to the boundary and orientation cues, whereas for the remainder of the participants the boundary was unstable relative to landmarks and orientation cues. In a second stage of training, all cues remained stable so that both goal locations could be learned with respect to both landmark and boundary information. According to the cue type hypothesis, boundary information should block learning about landmarks regardless of cue stability. According to the cue stability hypothesis, however, landmarks should block learning about the boundary when the landmarks appear stable relative to the boundary. Regardless of cue type or stability the results showed reciprocal blocking, contrary to both formulations of incidental cognitive mapping. Experiment 3 established that the results of Experiments 1 and 2 could not be explained in terms of difficulty in learning certain locations with respect to different cue types. In a final experiment, following training in which both landmarks and boundary cues signalled two goal locations, a new goal location was established with respect to the landmark cues, before testing with the boundary, which had never been used to define the new goal location. The results of this novel test of the interaction between boundary and landmark cues indicated that new learning with respect to the landmark had a profound effect on navigation with respect to the boundary, counter to the predictions of incidental cognitive mapping of boundaries.

KW - Navigation

KW - Boundaries

KW - Landmarks

KW - Blocking

KW - Memory systems

KW - Geometric module

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104802

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104802

M3 - Journal article

VL - 214

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

M1 - 104802

ER -