The influence of environmental geometry and spatial symmetry on spatial updating during locomotion.

Abstract

Spatial updating based on self-motion cues is important to navigation in the absence of familiar landmarks. Previous studies showed that spatial updating without vision was automatic. The goal of the current study was to investigate whether ambiguous orientations indicated by visual cues affect spatial updating based on self-motion. Participants learned an object array in a rectangular room. After the objects were removed, participants maintained their actual perspective or turned 180°to face opposite walls of the room. Participants judged relative directions from imagined perspectives based on the memories of the object array. The actual and imagined perspectives were aligned or misaligned. Better performance for aligned than misaligned perspectives (sensorimotor alignment effects) was used to indicate spontaneous updating of ones' headings relative to the object array. In Experiment 1, participants turned their bodies in the middle of the room so that their distances to the walls of the room looked similar before and after turning (spatial symmetry at the turning position with the rectangular room shape). In Experiments 2-3, participants turned their bodies in a location so that the distances to the facing walls looked different before and after turning (spatial asymmetry at the turning position with the rectangular room shape). The results showed sensorimotor alignment effects in Experiments 2-3 but not in Experiment 1. These results suggest that updating self-orientation based on self-motion was cancelled by ambiguous orientations indicated by spatial symmetry at the turning position, but not cancelled by ambiguous orientations indicated by the rectangular room shape per se.

Visual re-anchoring in misaligned local spaces impairs global path integration.

“…However, in general, response latency appears to be more sensitive than pointing error to sensorimotor alignment effects. These results are consistent with other findings in the literature (see a discussion in Lei et al, 2022). In the current study, the global sensorimotor alignment effect, as well as the local sensorimotor alignment effect, was found in response latency but not absolute pointing error in Experiment 3, whereas local sensorimotor alignment effects were found in both response latency and absolute pointing error in Experiments 1 and 2.…”

“…Although previous studies suggested that response latency might be more sensitive than pointing error to sensorimotor alignment effects, sensorimotor alignment effects were found in either latency (e.g., Avraamides & Kelly, 2005) or pointing error (e.g., Riecke & McNamara, 2017, Experiment 2) if not both (see a discussion in Lei et al, 2022). Hence, sensorimotor alignment effects were concluded based on either response latency or pointing error in the current study as long as the results in response latency and pointing error do not show reversed alignment effects.…”

“…Following previous studies on alignment effects which showed effects in either response latency and/or pointing error (e.g., Avraamides & Kelly, 2005; Kelly et al, 2007), the current study relied on either response latency or pointing error to conclude sensorimotor alignment effects. This practice of data analyses was consistently used in our previous studies (Lei et al, 2022; Lei & Mou, 2021, 2022), as summarized in Table 4. The results of these previous studies showed that sensorimotor alignment effects occurred only in response latency or only in pointing error, if not in both.…”

“…Therefore, if there is a sensorimotor alignment effect, this will suggest that participants automatically encode and update their actual heading relative to the layout of objects during locomotion between learning and testing phases. It is the reason why a JRD task is widely used to test spontaneous spatial updating (e.g., Farrell & Robertson, 1998; Kelly et al, 2007; Lei et al, 2022; Rieser, 1989; Waller et al, 2002). In addition, Kelly et al (2008) asked participants to point to target locations after each walking to test spatial updating.…”

“…To accomplish a JRD trial, participants do not need to know the spatial relationship between their actual testing heading and the layout of objects used in JRDs. A JRD trial can be accomplished solely based on mental perspective-taking using the layout of objects (Lei et al, 2022; Lei & Mou, 2022). Therefore, if there is a sensorimotor alignment effect, this will suggest that participants automatically encode and update their actual heading relative to the layout of objects during locomotion between learning and testing phases.…”