English
 
User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Meeting Abstract

Movement, successive presentation and environmental structure and their influence on spatial memory in vista and environmental space

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons192895

Stickrodt,  M
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons84081

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

Stickrodt, M., & Meilinger, T. (2015). Movement, successive presentation and environmental structure and their influence on spatial memory in vista and environmental space. In C. Bermeitinger, A. Moijzisch, & W. Greve (Eds.), TeaP 2015: Abstracts of the 57th Conference of Experimental Psychologists (pp. 246). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002A-4740-4
Abstract
A vista space (VS), e.g., a room, is perceived from one vantage point, whereas an environmental space (ES), e.g., a building, is experienced successively during movement. Participants learned the same object layout during walking through multiple corridors (ES) or within a differently oriented room (VS). In four VS conditions they either learned a fully or a successively visible object layout, and either from a static position or by walking through the environment along a path, mirroring the translation in ES. Afterwards, participants pointed between object locations in different body orientations and reproduced the object layout. Pointing latency in ES increased with the number of corridors to the target and pointing performance was best along corridor-based orientations. In VS conditions latency did not increase with distance and pointing performance was best along room-based orientations which were oblique to corridor and walking orientations. Furthermore, ES learners arranged the layout in the order they experienced the objects, and less so VS learners. Most beneficial pointing orientations, distance and order effects suggest that spatial memory in ES is qualitatively different from spatial memory in VS and that differences in the visible environment rather than movement or successive presentation are responsible for that.