Different mental representations for place recognition and goal localization

Qualitative differences in memory for vista and environmental spaces are caused by opaque borders, not movement or successive presentation

“…Our study demonstrated in addition that the initial view and the global layout-intrinsic orientation are less important for setting the reference frame in an ES. In VS studies it has already been shown that the initial view can be dominated by another, if this new view is aligned with a geometric feature (e.g., global room, mat, object layout) (Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). Similarly, the same seems to account for ES learning.…”

“…Wcontrast fits were positive for learning in VS, hence, reference frames were centered on the aligned orientation of initial view, room geometry and object layout (0°, ±90°, 180°) as in prior studies (e.g., Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). In contrast, in ES negative wcontrasts were found, i.e., overall lowest error rate and fastest responses were shown when aligned with or orthogonal to the corridors (±45°and ±135°).…”

“…When walking down, for example, a corridor, the observers' view will naturally become aligned with the geometric axis of the corridor. Such a viewer-spacealignment experienced later during learning was found to be more important for determining reference frame orientation than initial views on a room (Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). A relatively simple environmental space (e.g., few orthogonally interlinked corridors) may still be represented along a single main axis that spans the entire environmental space (axis presumably aligned with the first vista space encountered; Meilinger, Frankenstein, Watanabe, Bülthoff, & Hölscher, 2015;Tlauka, Carter, Mahlberg, & Wilson, 2011;Wilson, Wilson, Griffiths, & Fox, 2007).…”

The integration of spatial information across different viewpoints

“…The alignment/misalignment of the start locations with an intrinsic axis of the experimental room/carpet did not influence error rate (F < 1) or response times, F(3, 262) = 1.48, p = .219. Such differences were expected if participants used reference frames for integration that were aligned with the intrinsic orientation of the room/carpet (Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Mou & McNamara, 2002;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). We did not, however, test for oblique misalignments relative to the room/carpet (i.e., 45°, 135°), which in these experiments often influence performance more than do orthogonal misalignments (90°, 180°).…”

“…Many earlier experiments demonstrated that the learning of spatial layouts can lead to the establishment of a stable reference frame relative to the surrounding room or the object array (Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Mou & McNamara, 2002;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). To control for such effects, we systematically varied the start locations relative to the room and the carpet in both experiments.…”