Building a Cognitive Science of Human Variation: Individual Differences in Spatial Navigation

Abstract

The aim of this issue is to take stock of cognitive science of human variation in the field of spatial navigation, an important domain in which debates have often assumed an invariant human mind. Addressing the challenge of individual differences requires cognitive scientists to change their practices in several ways. First, we need to consider how to design measures and paradigms that have adequate psychometric characteristics. Second, using reliable, efficient, and valid measures, we need to examine how people vary from time to time, both in the short run due to emotions, such as stress or time pressure, and in the longer run, due to training or living in physical environments that require wayfinding skills. Third, we need to study people different from the traditional college participants, including variations in age, gender, education, culture, physical environment, and possible interactions among these variables.

Measuring configural spatial knowledge: Individual differences in correlations between pointing and shortcutting

“…Low-spatial participants showed low internal consistency in their pointing and shortcutting performance, while highspatial participants showed relatively low internal consistency in their shortcutting performance in immersive VR, which attenuated the observed correlation between the two measures (Ackerman & Hambrick, 2020;Hedge al., 2018;Parsons et al, 2019). The item-level variance may be driven by (1) inconsistent accuracy of mental representations for different locations in the environment (e.g., landmarks near the boundary or aligned with specific orientations may be easier to learn), (2) differential availability of navigational cues in different trials, and (3) participants' differential sensitivity to these cues (e.g., Andersen et al, 2012;Barhorst-Cates et al, 2021;Coutrot et al, 2022;He et al, 2021, Newcombe et al, 2023. Investigating the effect of these factors calls for future studies.…”

“…Compared to landmark and route knowledge, acquiring configural knowledge shows the largest individual differences Peer et al, 2021;Weisberg & Newcombe, 2018). It is critical to investigate these individual differences using valid and reliable measures (Newcombe et al, 2023) to advance our understanding of configural knowledge.…”

“…However, the difficulty across trials and discriminating power may vary due to differential availability and saliency of navigation cues such as landmarks and street structure in different trials (Caduff & Timpf, 2008;Röser et al, 2012;Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999), and people may be differentially susceptible to these factors (Andersen et al, 2012;Barhorst-Cates et al, 2021;Coutrot et al, 2022;He et al, 2021;Lawton, 2001;Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016). Ignoring reliability may mislead researchers to conclude a dissociation between the abilities measured by two tasks based on a low correlation, when, in fact, that low correlation is due to the low reliability of the individual measures (Ackerman & Hambrick, 2020;Hedge et al, 2018;Parsons et al, 2019;Newcombe et al, 2023). Ignoring inadequate discriminating power leads to the pitfall that the reported results are only applicable to a subset of the population, whereas others are out of scope due to ceiling or floor effects (Cramer & Howitt, 2005;Kang & MacDonald, 2010;Newcombe et al, 2023).…”

“…Ignoring reliability may mislead researchers to conclude a dissociation between the abilities measured by two tasks based on a low correlation, when, in fact, that low correlation is due to the low reliability of the individual measures (Ackerman & Hambrick, 2020;Hedge et al, 2018;Parsons et al, 2019;Newcombe et al, 2023). Ignoring inadequate discriminating power leads to the pitfall that the reported results are only applicable to a subset of the population, whereas others are out of scope due to ceiling or floor effects (Cramer & Howitt, 2005;Kang & MacDonald, 2010;Newcombe et al, 2023).…”

We Are Wanderers: Abstract geometry reflects spatial navigation

“…A link between abstract geometry and navigation may also have implications for the development of geometry pedagogy and educational interventions. Teaching abstract geometry using navigational contexts might better serve math instruction (Dillon et al, 2017), which should also take into account how an individual's navigation experience (Coutrot et al, 2022;Newcombe et al, 2022) might affect their capacity for learning. Finally, in finding that a verbal description of a navigating agent uniquely elicits the same geometric information as a verbal description of abstract points and lines, the present study suggests that our explorations of abstract geometry often rely on our spatial navigation, suggesting, perhaps, that the origins of geometry may lie in dynamic mental simulations of the physical world, akin to a correlated random walk of a navigating insect.…”