During navigation, humans combine visual information from their surroundings with body-based information from the translational and rotational components of their movement. Theories of navigation focus on the role of visual and rotational body-based information, even though experimental evidence shows they are not sufficient for complex spatial tasks. To investigate the contribution of all three sources of information, we asked participants to search a computer-generated virtual room for targets. Participants were provided with only visual information or with visual information supplemented with body-based information for all movement (walk group) or rotational movement (rotate group). The walk group performed the task with near-perfect efficiency, irrespective of whether a rich or impoverished visual scene was provided. The visual-only and rotate groups were significantly less efficient and frequently searched parts of the room at least twice. These results suggest that full physical movement plays a critical role in navigational search, but only moderate visual detail is required.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AvraamidesM.N.KlatzkyR.L.LoomisJ.M.GolledgeR.G. (2004). Use of cognitive versus perceptual heading during imagined locomotion depends on the response mode. Psychological Science, 15, 403–408.
2.
ChanceS.S.GaunetF.BeallA.C.LoomisJ.M. (1998). Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 168–178.
3.
FarrellM.J.ArnoldP.PettiferS.AdamsJ.GrahamT.MacManamonM. (2003). Transfer of route learning from virtual to real environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 219–227.
4.
FooP.WarrenW.H.DuchonA.TarrM.J. (2005). Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 195–215.
5.
GopalS.KlatzkyR.L.SmithT.R. (1989). NAVIGATOR: A psychologically based model of environmental learning through navigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 309–331.
6.
IwataH.YanoH.FukushimaH.NomaH. (2005). CirculaFloor: A locomotion interface using circulation of movable tiles. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference VR'05 (pp. 223–230). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
7.
JanzenG.van TurennoutM. (2004). Selective neural representation of objects relevant for navigation. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 673–677.
8.
KearnsM.J.WarrenW.H.DuchonA.P.TarrM.J. (2002). Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception, 31, 349–374.
9.
KlatzkyR.L.LoomisJ.M.BeallA.C.ChanceS.S.GolledgeR.G. (1998). Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9, 293–298.
10.
LesselsS.RuddleR.A.(2005).Movement around real and virtual cluttered environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14, 580–596.
11.
LoomisJ.M.BeallA.C.MacugaK.L.KellyJ.W.SmithR.S. (2006). Visual control of action without retinal optic flow. Psychological Science, 17, 214–221.
12.
MouW.McNamaraT.P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 162–170.
13.
MouW.McNamaraT.P.ValiquetteC.M.RumpB. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 142–157.
14.
PauschR.ProffittD.WilliamsG. (1997). Quantifying immersion in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '97) (pp. 13–18). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
15.
PressonC.C.MontelloD.R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447–1455.
16.
RieckeB.E.van VeenH.A.H.C.BülthoffH.H. (2002). Visual homing is possible without landmarks: A path integration study in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11, 443–473.
17.
RieserJ.J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1157–1165.
18.
RuddleR.A. (2001). Navigation: Am I really lost or virtually there?InHarrisD.(Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (Vol. 6, pp.135–142). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
19.
RuddleR.A.PayneS.J.JonesD.M. (1999). Navigating large-scale virtual environments: What differences occur between helmet-mounted and desk-top displays?Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8, 157–168.
20.
RuddleR.A.PéruchP. (2004). Effects of proprioceptive feedback and environmental characteristics on spatial learning in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 299–326.
21.
SpiersH.J.MaguireE.A. (2004). A ‘landmark’ study on the neural basis of navigation. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 572–574.
