title: Combining path integration and remembered landmarks when navigating without vision.
abstract: This study investigated the interaction between remembered landmark and path integration strategies for estimating current location when walking in an environment without vision. We asked whether observers navigating without vision only rely on path integration information to judge their location, or whether remembered landmarks also influence judgments. Participants estimated their location in a hallway after viewing a target (remembered landmark cue) and then walking blindfolded to the same or a conflicting location (path integration cue). We found that participants averaged remembered landmark and path integration information when they judged that both sources provided congruent information about location, which resulted in more precise estimates compared to estimates made with only path integration. In conclusion, humans integrate remembered landmarks and path integration in a gated fashion, dependent on the congruency of the information. Humans can flexibly combine information about remembered landmarks with path integration cues while navigating without visual information.
authors.affiliation: Department of Brain and Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
authors.forename: Amy A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Kalia
authors.forename: Paul R
authors.initials: PR
authors.lastname: Schrater
authors.forename: Gordon E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Legge
mesh_terms: D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D013028:Space Perception; D015354:Vision, Low / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000523:psychology*; D016138:Walking; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J AAPOS. 2008 Dec;12(6):555-9
references.pmid: 18706841
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Jul 22;271(1547):1485-9
references.pmid: 15306320
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Mar;31(2):195-215
references.pmid: 15755239
references.citation: Perception. 2003;32(5):567-78
references.pmid: 12854643
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Jan 21;9(1):24.1-19
references.pmid: 19271894
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Mar;28(2):335-45
references.pmid: 11911388
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2011 May;137(3):484-507
references.pmid: 21299273
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Apr;33(2):378-390
references.pmid: 17469974
references.citation: Perception. 1990;19(5):675-89
references.pmid: 2103000
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Jan;72(1):23-7
references.pmid: 20045877
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2008 May 6;18(9):689-93
references.pmid: 18450447
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):625-37
references.pmid: 17592958
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1993 Mar;122(1):73-91
references.pmid: 8440978
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943
references.pmid: 17895984
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1948 Jul;55(4):189-208
references.pmid: 18870876
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1983 Jun;9(3):427-43
references.pmid: 6223981
references.citation: Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(3):389-412
references.pmid: 7892735
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:271-304
references.pmid: 14744217
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jan 18;108(3):1152-7
references.pmid: 21199934
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):162-9
references.pmid: 15050512
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Nov;18(4):906-21
references.pmid: 1431754
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1997 Apr;59(3):404-18
references.pmid: 9136270
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997 Feb;23(1):86-100
references.pmid: 9090148
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1999 Mar;81(3):1355-64
references.pmid: 10085361