Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (2) : 188-195     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00188
The influence of target knowledge on path integration
GUO Jichengsi,HUANG Jianping,WAN Xiaoang()
Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Download: PDF(1282 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info

Navigation can be classified into piloting and path integration based on the types of information used. Piloting allows navigators to use direction sensory cues regarding the environment and landmarks, but in path integration, navigators rely on self-motion information. Previous research has revealed that the presence of landmarks might influence human path integration, but it remains unclear how this process might be influenced by the participants’ knowledge about which target location to which they would be asked to return. Here, we report a study designed to investigate the effect of target knowledge in human path integration.
In the present study, we used Head-Mounted-Display Virtual Reality to present hallway-mazes, and employed a modified return-to-origin task used by Wan, Wang, and Crowell (2012). That is, the participants first traveled along 5-segment pathways where 0, 1, or 2 landmarks were present at the intersections. When arriving at the end of the outbound pathways, they were asked to return directly to the origin or one of the landmark locations. In order to manipulate target knowledge, we gave different instructions to three groups of participants at the beginning of each trail: the first group was not given any information about where to return; the second group was told about whether they would be asked to return to the origin or one of the landmark locations (without knowing which landmark exactly); and the third group was told about which specific location they would be asked to return to.
The results showed the effects of target knowledge on both the return-to-origin and return-to-landmark responses. When attempting to return to the origin, the uninformed group showed longer RTs when there were two landmarks than when there was no landmark; whereas the other two groups showed no such patterns. For another, when attempting to return to the specified landmarks, the uninformed group showed greater position errors than the other two groups. That is to say, target knowledge might diminish interference from the presence or increase of the landmarks on the return-to-origin responses, and lead to more accurate return-to-landmark responses.
Taken together, these results revealed that more knowledge about where to return might facilitate human path integration. One possibility is that more knowledge about the target might allow the participants to use a more adaptive strategy to reduce their working memory load and to simplify the structure of the outbound paths they need to process. These findings highlight the influence of non-perceptual factors on human path integration, and they indicate that path integration in humans might be an adaptive and strategic process.

Keywords path integration      target knowledge      landmark      virtual reality      spatial navigation     
ZTFLH:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: Xiaoang WAN     E-mail:
Issue Date: 24 December 2018
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Jichengsi GUO
Jianping HUANG
Xiaoang WAN
Cite this article:   
Jichengsi GUO,Jianping HUANG,Xiaoang WAN. The influence of target knowledge on path integration[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(2): 188-195.
URL:     OR
1 Arnold A. E. G. F., Burles F., Bray S., Levy R. M., & Iaria G . ( 2014). Differential neural network configuration during human path integration. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 263: doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00263.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00263
2 Cheng K., Shettleworth S. J., Huttenlocher J., & Rieser J . ( 2007). Bayesian integration of spatial information. Psychological Bulletin, 133( 4), 625-637.
3 Chrastil E. R., Sherrill K. R., Hasselmo M. E., & Stern C. E . ( 2016). Which way and how far? Tracking of translation and rotation information for human path integration. Human Brain Mapping, 37( 10),3636-3655.
4 Collett, T.S., & Graham P. ( 2004). Animal navigation: Path integration, visual landmarks and cognitive maps. Current Biology, 14( 12), R475-R477.
5 Foo P., Duchon A., Warren W. H., & Tarr M. J . ( 2007). Humans do not switch between path knowledge and landmarks when learning a new environment. Psychological Research, 71( 3), 240-251.
6 Foo P., Warren W. H., Duchon A., & Tarr M. 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( 2), 195-215.
7 Guo, J. C.S., & Wan X.A, . ( 2015). The effect of learning in virtual path integration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47( 6), 711-720.
7 [ 过继成思, 宛小昂 . ( 2015). 虚拟路径整合的学习效应. 心理学报, 47( 6), 711-720.]
8 He, Q., & McNamara T.P, . ( 2018). Spatial updating strategy affects the reference frame in path integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25( 3), 1073-1079.
9 Kearns M. J., Warren W. H., Duchon A. P., & Tarr M. J . ( 2002). Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception, 31, 349-374.
10 Li, D., & Yang, Z . ( 2015). Spatial navigation: The relationship between landmark learning and path integration. Advances in Psychological Science, 23( 10), 1755-1762.
10 [ 李丹, 杨昭宁 . ( 2015). 空间导航: 路标学习和路径整合的关系. 心理科学进展, 23(10#), 1755-1762.]
11 Loomis J. M., Klatzky R. L., Golledge R. G., Cicinelli J. G., Pellegrino J. W., & Fry P. A . ( 1993). Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122( 1), 73-91.
12 Philbeck J. W., Klatzky R. L., Behrmann M., Loomis J. M., & Goodridge J . ( 2001). Active control of locomotion facilitates nonvisual navigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27( 1), 141-153.
13 Philbeck, J.W., & O’Leary S. ( 2005). Remembered landmarks enhance the precision of path integration. Psicologica, 26( 1), 7-24.
14 Poucet B., Sargolini F., Song E. Y., Hangya B., Fox S., & Muller R. U . ( 2014). Independence of landmark and self-motion-guided navigation: A different role for grid cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369( 1635), 20130370.
15 Rossano, M.J., & Reardon W.P, . ( 1999). Goal specificity and the acquisition of survey knowledge. Environment and Behavior, 31(3), 395-412.
16 Sjolund L. A., Kelly J. W., & McNamara T. P . ( 2018). Optimal combination of environmental cues and path integration during navigation. Memory & Cognition, 46( 1), 89-99.
17 Sweller, J. ( 1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4( 4), 295-312.
18 Sweller, J., & Chandler P. ( 1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12( 3), 185-233.
19 Theeuwes, J. ( 2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135( 2), 77-99.
20 Wan, X. ( 2016). The phenomenon and mechanisms of path integration in humans. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press.
20 [ 宛小昂 . ( 2016). 人类路径整合的现象与机制. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社.]
21 Wan X., Wang R. F., & Crowell J. A . ( 2012). The effect of landmarks in human path integration. Acta Psychologica, 140( 1), 7-12.
22 Wan X., Wang R. F., & Crowell J. A . ( 2012). The effect of landmarks in human path integration. Acta Psychologica, 140( 1), 7-12.
23 Wan X., Wang R. F., & Crowell J. A . ( 2013). Effects of basic path properties on human path integration. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 13(1), 79-101.
24 Wang, R.F . ( 2016). Building a cognitive map by assembling multiple path integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 692-702.
25 Wang R. F., Crowell J. A., Simons D. J., Irwin D. E., Kramer A. F., Ambinder M. S., … Hsieh B. B . ( 2006). Spatial updating relies on an egocentric representation of space: Effects of the number of objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13( 2), 281-286.
26 Wiener J. M., Berthoz A., & Wolbers T . ( 2011). Dissociable cognitive mechanisms underlying human path integration. Experimental Brain Research, 208( 1),61-71.
27 Zhang, L., & Mou W. ( 2017). Piloting systems reset path integration systems during position estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43( 3), 472-491.
28 Zhao, M., & Warren W.H, . ( 2015 b). How you get there from here: Interaction of visual landmarks and path integration in human navigation. Psychological Science, 26( 6),915-924.
29 Zhou, J.S., & Zhang K . ( 2005). Kinestheic, Irrelevant Motion and Path Integration. Psychological Science, 28( 6), 1306-1308.
29 [ 周佳树, 张侃 . ( 2005). 运动觉、布局无关运动与路径整合. 心理科学, 28( 6), 1306-1308.]
[1] Bihua YAN,Xiaomin LIU,Haozhe LIU. Landmark attraction effect and landmark repulsion effect on representational momentum in airplane movement scene[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(7): 703-714.
[2] Xiaojun YUAN, Xiaoxia CUI, Zhengcao CAO, Hong KAN, Xiao WANG, Yamin WANG. Attentional bias towards threatening visual stimuli in a virtual reality-based visual search task[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 622-636.
[3] ZHOU Xi; WAN Xiaoang; DU Dikang; XIONG Yilei; HUANG Weixin. Reorientation in uncontinuous virtual reality space[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 924-932.
[4] GUO Jichengsi; WAN Xiaoang. The Effect of Learning in Virtual Path Integration[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(6): 711-720.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech