Distorted mental spatial representation of multi-level buildings - Humans are biased towards equilateral shapes of height and width.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 10 2019
21 10 2019
Historique:
received:
19
02
2019
accepted:
20
09
2019
entrez:
23
10
2019
pubmed:
23
10
2019
medline:
31
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A distorted model of a familiar multi-level building with a systematic overestimation of the height was demonstrated earlier in psychophysical and real world navigational tasks. In the current study we further investigated this phenomenon with a tablet-based application. Participants were asked to adjust height and width of the presented buildings to best match their memory of the dimensional ratio. The estimation errors between adjusted and true height-width ratios were analyzed. Additionally, familiarity with respect to in- and outside of the building as well as demographic data were acquired. A total of 142 subjects aged 21 to 90 years from the cities of Bern and Munich were tested. Major results were: (1) a median overestimation of the height of the multi-level buildings of 11%; (2) estimation errors were significantly less if the particular building was unknown to participants; (3) in contrast, the height of tower-like buildings was underestimated; (4) the height of long, flat shaped buildings was overestimated. (5) Further features, such as the architectonical complexity were critical. Overall, our internal models of large multi-level buildings are distorted due to multiple factors including geometric features and memory effects demonstrating that such individual models are not rigid but plastic with consequences for spatial orientation and navigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31636281
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50992-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-50992-6
pmc: PMC6803710
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15046Références
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Oct;8(10):1401-10
pubmed: 16172600
J Exp Biol. 2007 Mar;210(Pt 5):845-53
pubmed: 17297144
Cogn Process. 2012 Aug;13 Suppl 1:S107-11
pubmed: 22915259
Exp Brain Res. 2018 Oct;236(10):2811-2827
pubmed: 30030590
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Apr;81(3):778-793
pubmed: 30628035
Hippocampus. 2013 Apr;23(4):245-6
pubmed: 23355406
Iperception. 2011;2(9):992-1013
pubmed: 23145258
Cognition. 2014 Sep;132(3):262-8
pubmed: 24853629
Psychol Sci. 2003 Mar;14(2):106-12
pubmed: 12661670
Iperception. 2017 Nov 29;8(6):2041669517735541
pubmed: 29225765
J Exp Psychol. 1957 Jun;53(6):405-7
pubmed: 13439129
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 28;10(10):e0141257
pubmed: 26509927
Behav Brain Res. 2011 Sep 23;222(2):279-88
pubmed: 21419172
Perception. 1999;28(4):445-67
pubmed: 10664786
Vision (Basel). 2018 Jun 26;2(3):
pubmed: 31735889
Perception. 2011;40(6):757-60
pubmed: 21936305
Cereb Cortex. 2016 Oct 17;26(11):4392-4404
pubmed: 26420782
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006 Jun;1(2):110-22
pubmed: 26151466