↓ Skip to main content

Finding Home: Landmark Ambiguity in Human Navigation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Finding Home: Landmark Ambiguity in Human Navigation
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Jetzschke, Marc O. Ernst, Julia Froehlich, Norbert Boeddeker

Abstract

Memories of places often include landmark cues, i.e., information provided by the spatial arrangement of distinct objects with respect to the target location. To study how humans combine landmark information for navigation, we conducted two experiments: To this end, participants were either provided with auditory landmarks while walking in a large sports hall or with visual landmarks while walking on a virtual-reality treadmill setup. We found that participants cannot reliably locate their home position due to ambiguities in the spatial arrangement when only one or two uniform landmarks provide cues with respect to the target. With three visual landmarks that look alike, the task is solved without ambiguity, while audio landmarks need to play three unique sounds for a similar performance. This reduction in ambiguity through integration of landmark information from 1, 2, and 3 landmarks is well modeled using a probabilistic approach based on maximum likelihood estimation. Unlike any deterministic model of human navigation (based e.g., on distance or angle information), this probabilistic model predicted both the precision and accuracy of the human homing performance. To further examine how landmark cues are integrated we introduced systematic conflicts in the visual landmark configuration between training of the home position and tests of the homing performance. The participants integrated the spatial information from each landmark near-optimally to reduce spatial variability. When the conflict becomes big, this integration breaks down and precision is sacrificed for accuracy. That is, participants return again closer to the home position, because they start ignoring the deviant third landmark. Relying on two instead of three landmarks, however, goes along with responses that are scattered over a larger area, thus leading to higher variability. To model the breakdown of integration with increasing conflict, the probabilistic model based on a simple Gaussian distribution used for Experiment 1 needed a slide extension in from of a mixture of Gaussians. All parameters for the Mixture Model were fixed based on the homing performance in the baseline condition which contained a single landmark. from the 1-Landmark Condition. This way we found that the Mixture Model could predict the integration performance and its breakdown with no additional free parameters. Overall these data suggest that humans use similar optimal probabilistic strategies in visual and auditory navigation, integrating landmark information to improve homing precision and balance homing precision with homing accuracy.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 23%
Neuroscience 8 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 13%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,945,096
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,051
of 3,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,117
of 314,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#42
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.