Literature reported mixed evidence on whether active exploration benefits spatial knowledge acquisition over passive exploration. Active spatial learning typically involves at least physical control of one’s movement or navigation decision-making, while passive participants merely observe during exploration. To quantify the effects of active exploration in learning large-scale, unfamiliar environments, we analysed previous findings with the multi-level meta-analytical model. Potential moderators were identified and examined for their contributions to the variability in effect sizes. Of the 128 effect sizes retrieved from 33 experiments, we observed a small to moderate advantage of active exploration over passive observation. Important moderators include gender composition, decision-making, types of spatial knowledge, and matched visual information. We discussed the implications of the results along with the limitations.
AfroozA.WhiteD.ParolinB. (2018). Effects of active and passive exploration of the built environment on memory during wayfinding. Applied Geography (Sevenoaks), 101, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.10.009
*ArthurE. J. (1996). Orientation specificity in the mental representation of three-dimensional environments. University of Minnesota.
4.
AsturR. S.OrtizM. L.SutherlandR. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93(1), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4328(98)00019-9
5.
BakdashJ. Z.LinkenaugerS. A.ProffittD. (2008). Comparing decision-making and control for learning a virtual environment: Backseat drivers learn where they are going. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 52(27), 2117–2121. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120805202707
6.
Barhorst-CatesE. M.RandK. M.Creem-RegehrS. H. (2020). Does active learning benefit spatial memory during navigation with restricted peripheral field?Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 82(6), 3033–3047. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02038-7
*BrooksB. M.AttreeE. A.RoseF. D.CliffordB. R.LeadbetterA. G. (1999). The specificity of memory enhancement during interaction with a virtual environment. Memory (Hove), 7(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/741943713
9.
BrüggerA.RichterK.-F.FabrikantS. I. (2019). How does navigation system behavior influence human behavior?Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0156-5
BurigatS.ChittaroL. (2016). Passive and active navigation of virtual environments vs. traditional printed evacuation maps: A comparative evaluation in the aviation domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 87, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.11.004
12.
BurteH.MontelloD. R. (2017). How sense-of-direction and learning intentionality relate to spatial knowledge acquisition in the environment. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0057-4
13.
CarassaA.GeminianiG.MorgantiF.VarottoD. (2002). Active and passive spatial learning in a complex virtual environment: The effect of efficient exploration. Cognitive Processing, 3(4), 65–81.
14.
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 Environment, 7(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565659
15.
ChrastilE. R.WarrenW. H. (2012). Active and passive contributions to spatial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0182-x
16.
ChrastilE. R.WarrenW. H. (2013). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of survey knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1520–1537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032382
17.
*ChrastilE. R.WarrenW. H. (2015). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of graph knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1162–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000082
18.
*ChristouC. G.BülthoffH. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27(6), 996–1007. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201230
DechartresA.AtalI.RiverosC.MeerpohlJ.RavaudP. (2018). Association between publication characteristics and treatment effect estimates: A meta-epidemiologic study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(6), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1517
23.
EggerM.SmithG. D.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
24.
FangJ. T.LinJ. J. (2017). School travel modes and children’s spatial cognition. Urban Studies, 54(7), 1578–1600.
25.
*FarrellM. J.ArnoldP.PettiferS.AdamsJ.GrahamT.MacManamonM. (2003). Transfer of route learning from virtual to real environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(4), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.4.219
26.
*ForemanN.SandamasG.NewsonD. (2004). Distance underestimation in virtual space is sensitive to gender but not activity-passivity or mode of interaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 451–457.
27.
GardonyA. L.BrunyéT. T.MahoneyC. R.TaylorH. A. (2013). How navigational aids impair spatial memory: Evidence for divided attention. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 13(4), 319–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2013.792821
28.
*GaunetF.VidalM.KemenyA.BerthozA. (2001). Active, passive and snapshot exploration in a virtual environment: Influence on scene memory, reorientation and path memory. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 11(3), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00013-1
29.
GillnerS.MallotH. A. (1998). Navigation and acquisition of spatial knowledge in a virtual maze. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(4), 445–463.
30.
GramannK.HoepnerP.Karrer-GaussK. (2017). Modified navigation instructions for spatial navigation assistance systems lead to incidental spatial learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 193–193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00193
31.
*HahmJ.LeeK.LimS.-L.KimS.-Y.KimH.-T.LeeJ.-H. (2006). Effects of active navigation on object recognition in virtual environments. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9952
32.
HazenN. L. (1982). Spatial exploration and spatial knowledge: Individual and developmental differences in very young children. Child Development, 53, 826–833.
33.
HeQ.McNamaraT. P.BodenheimerB.KlippelA. (2019). Acquisition and transfer of spatial knowledge during wayfinding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(8), 1364–1386. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000654
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
36.
HegartyM.RichardsonA. E.MontelloD. R.LovelaceK.SubbiahI. (2002). Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence, 30, 425–447.
37.
IshikawaT.MontelloD. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003
38.
JansenP.SchmelterA.HeilM. (2010). Spatial knowledge acquisition in younger and elderly adults: A study in a virtual environment. Experimental Psychology, 57(1), 54–60.
39.
KellyJ. W. (2022). Distance perception in virtual reality: A meta-analysis of the effect of head-mounted display characteristics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3196606.
40.
LhuillierS.GyselinckV.PiolinoP.NicolasS. (2021). “Walk this way”: Specific contributions of active walking to the encoding of metric properties during spatial learning. Psychological Research, 85(7), 2502–2517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01415-z
41.
LindbergE.GarlingT. (1983). Acquisition of different types of locational information in cognitive maps: Automatic or effortful processing?Psychological Research, 45(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309349
42.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE.
43.
LöwenH.KrukarJ.SchweringA. (2019). Spatial learning with orientation maps: The influence of different environmental features on spatial knowledge acquisition. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-information, 8(3), 149.
44.
MacaskillP.WalterS. D.IrwigL. (2001). A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 20(4), 641–654.
45.
McShaneB. B.BöckenholtU.HansenK. T. (2016). Adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis: An evaluation of selection methods and some cautionary notes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 730–749.
46.
*MeadeM. E.MeadeJ. G.SauzeonH.FernandesM. A. (2019). Active navigation in virtual environments benefits spatial memory in older adults. Brain Sciences, 9(3), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9030047
47.
*MelansonB.KelsoJ.BowmanD. A. (2002). Effects of active exploration and passive observation on spatial learning in a CAVE. Department of Computer Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
48.
MinaeiN. (2014). Do modes of transportation and GPS affect cognitive maps of Londoners?Transportation Research. Part A, Policy and Practice, 70, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.10.008
49.
MittelstaedtM.-L.MittelstaedtH. (2001). Idiothetic navigation in humans: Estimation of path length. Experimental Brain Research, 139, 318–332.
50.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
51.
MondscheinA.BlumenbergE.TaylorB. (2010). Accessibility and cognition: The effect of transport mode on spatial knowledge. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 47(4), 845–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009351186
52.
MondscheinA.BlumenbergE.TaylorB. D. (2006). Cognitive mapping, travel behavior, and access to opportunity. Transportation Research Record, 1985(1), 266–272.
53.
MontelloD. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In FrankA.U.CampariI. (Eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 312–321). Proceedings of COSIT ‘93. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
54.
MontelloD. R. (1998). A new framework for understanding the acquisition. In EgenhoferM. J.GolledgeR. G. (Eds.), Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems (pp. 143–154). Oxford University Press.
55.
MontelloD. R. (2009). A conceptual model of the cognitive processing of environmental distance information. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5756, pp. LNCS1–17). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03832-7_1
56.
NazarethA.HuangX.VoyerD.NewcombeN. (2019). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human navigation skills. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(5), 1503–1528. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01633-6
57.
*PéruchP.VercherJ.-L.GauthierG. M. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments. Ecological Psychology, 7(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0701_1
58.
*PéruchP.WilsonP. N. (2004). Active versus passive learning and testing in a complex outside built environment. Cognitive Processing, 5(4), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-004-0027-x
59.
PiberD.NowackiJ.MuellerS. C.WingenfeldK.OtteC. (2018). Sex effects on spatial learning but not on spatial memory retrieval in healthy young adults. Behavioural Brain Research, 336, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2017.08.034
60.
PustejovskyJ. E.RodgersM. A. (2019). Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 57–71.
61.
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2021). Meta-analysis with robust variance estimation: Expanding the range of working models. Prevention Science, 23(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01246-3
62.
*QiuX.WenL.WuC.YangZ.WangQ.LiH.WangD. (2020). Impact of learning methods on spatial knowledge acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1322–1322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01322
63.
*RaganE. D.HuberK. J.LahaB.BowmanD. A. (2012, March4–8). The effects of navigational control and environmental detail on learning in 3D virtual environments. In 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW) (pp. 11–14). https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2012.6180868
64.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.
65.
RichardsonA. E.MontelloD. R.HegartyM. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211566
66.
RissottoA.TonucciF. (2002). Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge in elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 65–77.
67.
*RodriguesJ.SauzéonH.WalletG.N’KaouaB. (2010). Transfer of spatial-knowledge from virtual to real environment: Effect of active/passive learning depending on a test-retest procedure and the type of retrieval tests. Journal of Cybertherapy and Rehabilitation, 3, 275–283.
68.
RuddleR.VolkovaE.BülthoffH. (2011). Walking improves your cognitive map in environments that are large-scale and large in extent. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1970378.1970384
69.
RuddleR.VolkovaE.MohlerB.BülthoffH. H. (2010). The effect of landmark and body-based sensory information on route knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 39(4), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0054-z
70.
*SandamasG. (2006). Spatial learning in virtual environments by children and adults after active or passive experience [Doctoral dissertation]. Middlesex University.
71.
*SandamasG.ForemanN. (2003). Active and passive spatial learning from a desk-top virtual environment in male and female participants: A comparison with guessing controls. Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues, 4(2), 15–21.
72.
*SandamasG.ForemanN. (2007). Drawing maps and remembering landmarks after driving in a virtual small town environment. Journal of Maps, 3(1), 35–45.
73.
*SandamasG.ForemanN. (2015). Active versus passive acquisition of spatial knowledge while controlling a vehicle in a virtual urban space in drivers and non-drivers. SAGE Open, 5(3), 215824401559544. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015595443
74.
SiegelA. W.WhiteS. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 10, 9–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60007-5
75.
SjölinderM.HöökK.NilssonL.-G.AnderssonG. (2005). Age differences and the acquisition of spatial knowledge in a three-dimensional environment: Evaluating the use of an overview map as a navigation aid. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(6), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.024
76.
SrivastavaP.RimzhimA.VijayP.SinghS.ChandraS. (2019). Desktop VR is better than non-ambulatory HMD VR for spatial learning. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 50.
77.
SterlingT. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—Or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54(285), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1959.10501497
78.
*SunH. J.ChanG. S.CamposJ. L. (2004). Active navigation and orientation-free spatial representations. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 51–71.
79.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
80.
TlaukaM.BroleseA.PomeroyD.HobbsW. (2005). Gender differences in spatial knowledge acquired through simulated exploration of a virtual shopping centre. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.12.002
81.
TolmanE. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 198–208.
82.
Van AsselenM.FritschyE.PostmaA. (2006). The influence of intentional and incidental learning on acquiring spatial knowledge during navigation. Psychological Research, 70(2), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0199-0
83.
VeveaJ. L.HedgesL. V. (1995). A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika, 60, 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294384
84.
VeveaJ. L.WoodsC. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
85.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
86.
*Von StülpnagelR.SteffensM. C. (2013). Active route learning in virtual environments: Disentangling movement control from intention, instruction specificity, and navigation control. Psychological Research, 77(5), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0451-y
87.
*WallerD.GreenauerN. (2007). The role of body-based sensory information in the acquisition of enduring spatial representations. Psychological Research, 71(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0087-x
88.
*WallerD.LoomisJ. M.HaunD. B. M. (2004). Body-based senses enhance knowledge of directions in large-scale environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206476
89.
*WalletG.SauzéonH.LarrueF.N’KaouaB. (2013). Virtual/real transfer in a large-scale environment: Impact of active navigation as a function of the viewpoint displacement effect and recall tasks. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2013, Article 879563. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/879563
90.
*WalletG.SauzéonH.PalaP. A.LarrueF.ZhengX.N’KaouaB. (2011). Virtual/real transfer of spatial knowledge: Benefit from visual fidelity provided in a virtual environment and impact of active navigation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(7–8), 417–423.
91.
*WalletG.SauzéonH.RodriguesJ.N’KaouaB. (2008, October27–29). Use of virtual reality for spatial knowledge transfer: Effects of passive/active exploration mode in simple and complex routes for three different recall tasks. In Virtual Reality Software and Technology (pp. 175–178). https://doi.org/10.1145/1450579.1450616
92.
WenW.IshikawaT.SatoT. (2013). Individual differences in the encoding processes of egocentric and allocentric survey knowledge. Cognitive Science, 37(1), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12005
93.
WillisK. S.HölscherC.WilbertzG.LiC. (2009). A comparison of spatial knowledge acquisition with maps and mobile maps. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33(2), 100–110.
*WilsonP. N. (1999). Active exploration of a virtual environment does not promote orientation or memory for objects. Environment and Behavior, 31(6), 752–763.
96.
*WilsonP. N.ForemanN.GillettR.StantonD. (1997). Active versus passive processing of spatial information in a computer-simulated environment. Ecological Psychology, 9(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0903_3
97.
WilsonP. N.ForemanN.TlaukaM. (1997). Transfer of spatial information from a virtual to a real environment. Human Factors, 39(4), 526–531.
WoollettK.MaguireE. A. (2010). The effect of navigational expertise on wayfinding in new environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 565–573.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
