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

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate the range of theories proposed to explain findings on the use of geometry in reorientation. We consider five key approaches and models associated with them and, in the course of reviewing each approach, five key issues. First, we take up modularity theory itself, as recently revised by Lee and Spelke (Cognitive Psychology, 61, 152-176, 2010a; Experimental Brain Research, 206, 179-188, 2010b). In this context, we discuss issues concerning the basic distinction between geometry and features. Second, we review the view-matching approach (Stürzl, Cheung, Cheng, & Zeil, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 1-14, 2008). In this context, we highlight the possibility of cross-species differences, as well as commonalities. Third, we review an associative theory (Miller & Shettleworth, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 191-212, 2007; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 419-422, 2008). In this context, we focus on phenomena of cue competition. Fourth, we take up adaptive combination theory (Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2006). In this context, we focus on discussing development and the effects of experience. Fifth, we examine various neurally based approaches, including frameworks proposed by Doeller and Burgess (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5909-5914, 2008; Doeller, King, & Burgess, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 5915-5920, 2008) and by Sheynikhovich, Chavarriaga, Strösslin, Arleo, and Gerstner (Psychological Review, 116, 540-566, 2009). In this context, we examine the issue of the neural substrates of spatial navigation. We conclude that none of these approaches can account for all of the known phenomena concerning the use of geometry in reorientation and clarify what the challenges are for each approach.

Place recognition and heading retrieval are mediated by dissociable cognitive systems in mice

“…By contrast, heading retrieval might involve interpreting the environment in terms of a spatial reference system from which orientational axes can be recovered (14). Although the precise computations underlying heading retrieval are unknown, previous work suggests that at least for humans, heading retrieval is not performed by view matching (4,19,20). (See SI Discussion 2 for further consideration of the implications of the present experiments for viewmatching theories of reorientation.…”

“…We use a variant of a spatial reorientation task that has been used extensively to study navigation behavior in a variety of species, including rodents and human children (4)(5)(6)(7). In the standard version of the task, the animal (or human) navigator is first familiarized with a rectangular chamber with a hidden reward in one of the corners.…”

Recent research on geometry education: an ICME-13 survey team report

“…Thus the spaces occupied and explored by children become significant not only for mapping but also for understanding basic geometric concepts such as boundedness, flat-ness, parallels, perpendiculars, curves, distance, and mapping. Young children use both geometric features of their surroundings as well as landmarks to find their way around spaces (Cheng, Huttenlocher, & Newcombe 2013). For example, Lee, Sovrano, and Spelke (2012) found that 2 year olds used surface distances and directions.…”

Wild hummingbirds can use the geometry of a flower array

“…Over the last three decades, much attention has been focused on the use of geometric relationships of enclosures for locating a goal (reviewed in Cheng et al 2013). For example, when trained to locate a reward in one of the four corners inside a rectangular enclosure, an experimentally-disoriented animal typically chooses, with approximately equal probability, either the correct corner or the diagonally-opposing corner (the "geometric error") during a test.…”