Working memory in spatial knowledge acquisition: Differences in encoding processes and sense of direction

Abstract

This study examined how different components of working memory are involved in spatial knowledge acquisition for good and poor sense-of-direction (SOD) people. We employed a dual-task method, and asked participants to learn routes from videos with verbal, visual and spatial interference tasks and without any interference. Results showed that participants with a good SOD encoded landmarks and routes verbally and spatially, and integrated knowledge about them into survey knowledge with the support of all three components of working memory. In contrast, participants with a poor SOD encoded landmarks only verbally, and tended to rely on the visual component of working memory in the processing of route knowledge. Based on the results, a possible model for explaining the differences in spatial knowledge acquisition and SOD was proposed.

Individual Differences in the Encoding Processes of Egocentric and Allocentric Survey Knowledge

“…On the basis of these results, we propose a model for the processing of egocentric and allocentric survey knowledge for people with a good and poor SOD (Figure 3), which extends the model of landmark, route, and survey knowledge acquisition proposed by Wen et al. (2011).…”

“…Verbal processing may help abstracting the characteristics of landmarks and routes analytically, and spatial processing may help encoding their metric or relational properties. The past finding that verbal and spatial working memory were involved in the acquisition of landmark and route knowledge (Garden et al., 2002; Meilinger et al., 2008; Wen et al., 2011) seems to reflect the fact that these two types of knowledge are basically tied to egocentric views.…”

“…Concerning the relationships between environmental learning and working memory, Garden, Cornoldi, and Logie (2002) and Meilinger, Knauff, and Bülthoff (2008) found that verbal and spatial working memory are involved in the acquisition of landmark and route knowledge. Because these studies lacked the consideration of survey knowledge and visual working memory, Wen, Ishikawa, and Sato (2011) examined the involvement of three different components of working memory in the acquisition of three types of spatial knowledge, in relation to participants’ SOD. They showed that people with a good SOD encoded landmarks and routes verbally and spatially, and integrated knowledge about them into survey knowledge with the support of all three components of working memory.…”

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

“…Furthermore, predefining an order by movement or successive object presentation might generate an additional verbal memory trace constructed along the learning order. Verbal memory was shown to be involved within route learning (Meilinger, Knauff, & Bülthoff, 2008;Wen, Ishikawa, & Sato, 2011) as well as learning of an object layout (Meilinger & Bülthoff, 2013). Memory retrieval in the subsequent placement task might be initialized following this verbal code.…”

A dedicated system for topographical working memory: evidence from domain-specific interference tests

“…Recently, Wen et al (2011Wen et al ( , 2013 examined the involvement of three different components of working memory in the acquisition of spatial knowledge in relation to the participants' sense of direction (SOD). They showed that people with a good SOD encoded landmarks and routes verbally and spatially and integrated this knowledge with the support of all three components of working memory.…”