Using virtual reality to assess dynamic self-motion and landmark cues for spatial updating in children and adults.
Development
Spatial updating
Virtual reality
Visual and body-based
Journal
Memory & cognition
ISSN: 1532-5946
Titre abrégé: Mem Cognit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0357443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2021
04 2021
Historique:
accepted:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
28
10
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
27
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The relative contribution of different sources of information for spatial updating - keeping track of one's position in an environment - has been highly debated. Further, children and adults may differ in their reliance on visual versus body-based information for spatial updating. In two experiments, we tested children (age 10-12 years) and young adult participants on a virtual point-to-origin task that varied the types of self-motion information available for translation: full-dynamic (walking), visual-dynamic (controller induced), and no-dynamic (teleporting). In Experiment 1, participants completed the three conditions in an indoor virtual environment with visual landmark cues. Adults were more accurate in the full- and visual-dynamic conditions (which did not differ from each other) compared to the no-dynamic condition. In contrast, children were most accurate in the visual-dynamic condition and also least accurate in the no-dynamic condition. Adults outperformed children in all conditions. In Experiment 2, we removed the potential for relying on visual landmarks by running the same paradigm in an outdoor virtual environment with no geometrical room cues. As expected, adults' errors increased in all conditions, but performance was still relatively worse in teleporting. Surprisingly, children showed overall similar accuracy and patterns across locomotion conditions to adults. Together, the results support the importance of dynamic translation information (either visual or body-based) for spatial updating across both age groups, but suggest children may be more reliant on visual information than adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33108632
doi: 10.3758/s13421-020-01111-8
pii: 10.3758/s13421-020-01111-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
572-585Subventions
Organisme : National Science Foundation
ID : 1763254
Références
Barhorst-Cates, E.M., Stefanucci, J.K., & Creem-Regehr, S.H. (2020). A comparison of virtual locomotion methods in movement experts and non-experts: Testing the contributions of body-based and visual translation for spatial updating. Experimental Brain Research, 1–13.
Bremmer, F., & Lappe, M. (1999). The use of optical velocities for distance discrimination and reproduction during visually simulated self motion. Experimental Brain Research 127, 33–42.
pubmed: 10424412
Chance, S. S., Gaunet, F., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (1998). Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence, 7(2), 168–178.
Cherep, L. A., Lim, A. F., Kelly, J. W., Acharya, D., Velasco, A., Bustamante, E., Ostrander, A. G., & Gilbert, S. B. (2020). Spatial cognitive implications of teleporting through virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Advance online publication.
Chrastil, E. R., Nicora, G. L., & Huang, A. (2019). Vision and proprioception make equal contributions to path integration in a novel homing task. Cognition, 192, 103998.
pubmed: 31228680
Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2012). Active and passive contributions to spatial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 1–23.
Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2013). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of survey knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1520.
pubmed: 23565781
Coomer, N., Bullard, S., Clinton, W., & Williams-Sanders, B. (2018). Evaluating the effects of four VR locomotion methods: Joystick, arm-cycling, point-tugging, and teleporting. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (p. 7). ACM.
De Beni, R. C. Meneghetti, C. Fiore, F., Gava, L., & Borella, E. Da Batteria VS. (2014). Valutazione delle abilità e delle autovalutazioni visuo-spaziali nell’arco di vita adulta, di Rielaborato da Vandenberg e Kuse (1978).
Downing, H. C., Barutchu, A., & Crewther, S. G. (2015). Developmental trends in the facilitation of multisensory objects with distractors. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1559.
pubmed: 25653630
pmcid: 4298743
Farrell, M. J., & Thomson, J. A. (1998). Automatic spatial updating during locomotion without vision. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 51(3), 6377–654.
Foreman, N., Orencas, C., Nicholas, E., Morton, P., & Gell, M. (1989). Spatial awareness in seven to 11-year-old physically handicapped children in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 4(3), 171–179.
Frick, A., & Möhring, W. (2016). A matter of balance: Motor control is related to children’s spatial and proportional reasoning skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2049.
pubmed: 26793157
pmcid: 4709580
Fujita, N., Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., & Golledge, R. G. (1990). A minimal representation for dead-reckoning navigation: Updating the homing vector. Geographical Analysis, 22(4), 324–335.
Gabbard, C., Caçola, P., & Bobbio, T. (2012). The ability to mentally represent action is associated with low motor ability in children: A preliminary investigation. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(3), 390–393.
Gori, M., Del Viva, M., Sandini, G., & Burr, D. C. (2008). Young children do not integrate visual and haptic form information. Current Biology, 18(9), 694–698.
pubmed: 18450446
Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34(2), 151–176.
Hettinger, L. J. (2002). Illusory self-motion in virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments (pp. 471–492). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Huffman, D.J., & Ekstrom, A.D. (2019). A modality-independent network underlies the retrieval of large-scale spatial environments in the human brain. Neuron 104(3), 611–622.
pubmed: 31540825
pmcid: 6842116
Jansen, P., & Heil, M. (2010). The relation between motor development and mental rotation ability in 5-to 6-year-old children. European Journal of Developmental Science, 4, 66–74.
Kalia, A. A., Schrater, P. R. & Legge, G. E. (2013). Combining path integration and remembered landmarks when navigating without vision. PloS one 8(9), e72170, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072170
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072170
pubmed: 24039742
pmcid: 3764103
Kelly, J. W., McNamara, T. P., Bodenheimer, B., Carr, T. H., & Rieser, J. J. (2008). The shape of human navigation: How environmental geometry is used in maintenance of spatial orientation. Cognition, 109(2), 281–286.
pubmed: 18952206
pmcid: 2612041
Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., Beall, A. C., Chance, S. S., & Golledge, R. G. (1998). Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9(4), 293–298.
Lappe, M., Jenkin, M., & Harris, L. R. (2007). Travel distance estimation from visual motion by leaky path integration. Experimental Brain Research, 180(1), 35–48.
pubmed: 17221221
Lehnung, M., Leplow, B., Ekroll, V., Herzog, A., Mehdorn, M., & Ferstl, R. (2003). The role of locomotion in the acquisition and transfer of spatial knowledge in children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 79–86.
pubmed: 12778975
Lehnung, M., Leplow, B., Friege, L., Herzog, A., Ferstl, R., & Mehdorn, M. (1998). Development of spatial memory and spatial orientation in preschoolers and primary school children. British Journal of Psychology, 89(3), 463–480.
pubmed: 9734301
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., Cicinelli, J. G., Pellegrino, J. W., & Fry, P. A. (1993). Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 73.
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., & Philbeck, J. W. (1999). Human navigation by path integration. Wayfinding behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, 125–151.
Nardini, M., Jones, P., Bedford, R., & Braddick, O. (2008). Development of cue integration in human navigation. Current Biology, 18(9), 689–693.
pubmed: 18450447
Newell, K. M., & Wade, M. G. (2018). Physical growth, body scale, and perceptual-motor development. In Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 55, pp. 205–243). JAI.
Nguyen-Vo, T., Riecke, B. E., Stuerzlinger, W., Pham, D. M., & Kruijff, E. (2019). NaviBoard and NaviChair: Limited Translation Combined with Full Rotation for Efficient Virtual Locomotion. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics.
O’Neal, E. E., Jiang, Y., Franzen, L. J., Rahimian, P., Yon, J. P., Kearney, J. K., & Plumert, J. M. (2018). Changes in perception–action tuning over long time scales: How children and adults perceive and act on dynamic affordances when crossing roads. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 18.
pubmed: 28425731
Paris, R., Klag, J., Rajan, P., Buck, L., McNamara, T. P., & Bodenheimer, B. (2019). How video game locomotion methods affect navigation in virtual environments. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2019, 1–7.
Peters, M., Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test-different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition, 28(1), 39–58.
pubmed: 7546667
Petrini, K., Caradonna, A., Foster, C., Burgess, N., & Nardini, M. (2016). How vision and self-motion combine or compete during path reproduction changes with age. Scientific Reports, 6, 29163.
pubmed: 27381183
pmcid: 4933893
Petrini, K., Jones, P. R., Smith, L., & Nardini, M. (2015). Hearing where the eyes see: Children use an irrelevant visual cue when localizing sounds. Child development, 86(5), 1449–1457.
pubmed: 26228618
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of school psychology, 48(1), 85–112.
pubmed: 20006989
Philbeck, J. W., & Loomis, J. M. (1997). Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(1), 72.
pubmed: 9090147
Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23(12), 1447–1455.
pubmed: 7792134
Riecke, B. E., Cunningham, D.W., & Bülthoff, H.H. (2007). Spatial updating in virtual reality: The sufficiency of visual information. Psychological Research, 71(3), 298–313.
pubmed: 17024431
Riecke, B. E., Heyde, M. V. D., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2005). Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflexlike spatial updating. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 2(3), 183–215.
Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Caniard, F., & Bulthoff, H. H. (2005, March). Towards lean and elegant self-motion simulation in virtual reality. In IEEE Proceedings. VR 2005. Virtual Reality, 2005. (pp. 131–138). IEEE.
Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1157.
pubmed: 2530309
Rieser, J. J., Guth, D. A., & Hill, E. W. (1986). Sensitivity to perspective structure while walking without vision. Perception, 15(2), 173–188.
pubmed: 3774488
Roberts, R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Markland, D., & Bringer, J. (2008). Movement imagery ability: Development and assessment of a revised version of the vividness of movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 200–221.
pubmed: 18490791
Ruddle, R. A., & Lessels, S. (2006). For efficient navigational search, humans require full physical movement, but not a rich visual scene. Psychological Science, 17(6), 460–465.
pubmed: 16771793
Ruddle, R. A., Volkova, E., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2011). Walking improves your cognitive map in environments that are large-scale and large in extent. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 18(2), 10.
Ruginski, I. T., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Stefanucci, J. K., & Cashdan, E. (2019). GPS use negatively affects environmental learning through spatial transformation abilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 12–20.
Sjolund, L. A., Kelly, J. W., & McNamara, T. P. (2018). Optimal combination of environmental cues and path integration during navigation. Memory & Cognition, 46(1), 89–99.
Smith, A. D., McKeith, L., & Howard, C. J. (2013). The development of path integration: combining estimations of distance and heading. Experimental Brain Research, 231(4), 445–455.
Thomson, J. A. (1983). Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(3), 427.
pubmed: 6223981
Trutoiu, L. C., Mohler, B. J., Schulte-Pelkum, J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2009). Circular, linear, and curvilinear vection in a large-screen virtual environment with floor projection. Computers & Graphics, 33(1), 47–58.
Warren Jr, W. H., Kay, B. A., Zosh, W. D., Duchon, A. P., & Sahuc, S. (2001). Optic flow is used to control human walking. Nature Neuroscience, 4(2), 213.
pubmed: 11175884
Wraga, M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2004). Spatial updating of virtual displays. Memory & Cognition, 32(3), 399–415.
Yan, J. H., Thomas, J. R., & Downing, J. H. (1998). Locomotion improves children's spatial search: A meta-analytic review. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87(1), 67–82.
pubmed: 9760628
Zhao, M., & Warren, W.H. (2015). How you get there from here: Interaction of visual landmarks and path integration in human navigation. Psychological Science, 26(6), 915–924.
pubmed: 25944773