English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Meeting Abstract

Mental mapping impossible environments

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons84081

Meilinger,  T
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons83963

Henson,  A
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons83839

Bülthoff,  HH
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Ressource
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Meilinger, T., Henson, A., & Bülthoff, H. (2015). Mental mapping impossible environments. In C. Bermeitinger, A. Moijzisch, & W. Greve (Eds.), TeaP 2015: Abstracts of the 57th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (pp. 167). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002A-4732-4
Abstract
Two main classes of mental representations describe navigable environments: single coordinate systems and graphs. In coordinate systems each location can be assigned a specific coordinate (maybe on a hierarchal sub-level). Graphs represent local environments as nodes (e.g. a street or room) and the relations between close-by nodes (e.g., two meters straight, one to the left). One difference between graphs and coordinate systems is that coordinate systems have to be consistent; each coordinate refers only to one location and vice versa. This is important, for example, when walking round a block encountering the start location again which was thought to lie further down the street. The start and the current location are identical and represented at the same coordinate. The erroneous estimation of the streets in the loop must be adjusted to fit into the coordinate system. In graphs such consistency is not required; local street length and turns do not have to be consistent in a global metric. To test these predictions participants walked multiple times through a virtual corridor environment roughly 80% round the loop when they visually encountered the start again. Afterwards, they judged the spatial relation between adjacent locations along the loop. The majority of participants adjusted the spatial relations as if they were in a smaller loop than the one walked. However, they adjusted them not far enough to fit into a coordinate system, which would have required an even smaller loop. These results are inconsistent both with classical graph and coordinate representations.