Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module

Chen, Ken

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.004

Cited by 184 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Cheng and colleagues (Cheng, 2008;Cheung et al, 2008) have suggested that view-based matching, rather than place matching, may account for directional responding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of rodent and human spatial navigation by room and apparatus cues

Hamilton

Johnson

Redhead

et al. 2009

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of literature indicates that rats prefer to navigate in the direction of a goal in the environment (directional responding) rather than to the precise location of the goal (place navigation). This paper provides a brief review of this literature with an emphasis on recent findings in the Morris water task. Four experiments designed to extend this work to humans in a computerized, virtual Morris water task are also described. Special emphasis is devoted how directional responding and place navigation are influenced by room and apparatus cues, and how these cues control distinct components of navigation to a goal. Experiments 1-2 demonstrate that humans, like rats, perform directional responses when cues from the apparatus are present, while Experiment 3 demonstrates that place navigation predominates when apparatus cues are eliminated. In Experiment 4, an eyetracking system measured gaze location in the virtual environment dynamically as participants navigated from a start point to the goal. Participants primarily looked at room cues during the early segment of each trial, but primarily focused on the apparatus as the trial progressed, suggesting distinct, sequential stimulus functions. Implications for computational modeling of navigation in the Morris water task and related tasks are discussed.

show abstract

“…Recently, Cheng and colleagues (Cheng, 2008;Cheung et al, 2008) have suggested that view-based matching, rather than place matching, may account for directional responding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control of rodent and human spatial navigation by room and apparatus cues

Hamilton

Johnson

Redhead

et al. 2009

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The possibility of speciesspeciWc diVerences in the dominance of geometric and nongeometric cues, possibly associated with ecological diVerences, cannot of course be ruled out (and some evidence favouring this view has been reported, i.e., Sovrano et al 2007). However, these Wndings also suggest a possible role of experience with angular and metric spatial information that is usually available to laboratory animals but not, or to a much smaller extent, to wild animals (Gray et al 2005; and see also Cheng 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Experience and geometry: controlled-rearing studies with chicks

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals can reorient making use of the geometric shape of an environment, i.e., using sense and metric properties of surfaces. Animals reared soon after birth either in circular or in rectangular enclosures (and thus aVording diVerent experiences with metric properties of the spatial layout) showed similar abilities when tested for spatial reorientation in a rectangular enclosure. Thus, early experience in environments with diVerent geometric characteristics does not seem to aVect animals' ability to reorient using sense and metric information. However, some results seem to suggest that when geometric and non-geometric information are set in conXict, rearing experience could aVect the relative dominance of featural (landmark) and geometric information. In three separate experiments, newborn chicks reared either in circular-or in rectangular-shaped homecages were tested for spatial reorientation in a rectangular enclosure, with featural information provided either by panels at the corners or by a blue-coloured wall. At test, when faced with aYne transformations in the arrangement of featural information that contrasted with the geometric information, chicks showed no evidence of any eVect of early experience on their relative use of geometric and featural information for spatial reorientation. These Wndings suggest that, at least for this highly precocial species, the ability to deal with geometry seems to depend more on predisposed mechanisms than on learning and experience after hatching.

show abstract

“…Reviews on the topic are plentiful, with a major review in 2005 (Cheng & Newcombe, 2005) and updates since that date (Cheng, 2008;Vallortigara, 2009). Rather, we seek to review the range of explanatory frameworks proposed after the Cheng and Newcombe review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module

Cited by 184 publications

References 66 publications

Control of rodent and human spatial navigation by room and apparatus cues

Control of rodent and human spatial navigation by room and apparatus cues

Experience and geometry: controlled-rearing studies with chicks

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About