Integration of spatial relationships and temporal relationships in humans

Abstract

Three experiments tested human participants on a two-dimensional, computer, landmark-based search task to assess the integration of independently acquired spatial and temporal relationships. Experiment 1 showed that A-B spatial training followed by B-outcome spatial training resulted in spatial integration in such a way that A was effectively associated with the outcome. Experiment 2 showed that A-B spatial and temporal training followed by B-outcome spatial and temporal training resulted in integration that created both spatial and temporal relationships between A and the outcome. Experiment 3 refuted an alternative explanation, one that is based on decision-making speed, to the temporal-integration strategy that was suggested by Experiment 2. These results replicate in humans the observations regarding spatial integration made by Sawa, Leising, and Blaisdell (2005) using a spatial-search task with pigeons, and they extend those observations to temporal integration.

Figure 1

The design and hypothetical spatial representation of Experiment 1. The left side of the figure depicts treatment trials given to the participants. The right side of the figure depicts the spatial representation in the Common Element group that would hypothetically result after spatial integration on the basis of superimposition of the element common to the training phases (i.e., B) and the expected responding based on this integration.

Figure 2

The design and hypothetical spatial and temporal representation of Experiment 2. The left side of the figure depicts the spatial and temporal training phases given to the participants. The ISI between the onset of A and the onset of B was 3 sec, and the ISI between the onset of B or C and the onset of O was 5 sec. The right side of the figure presents the spatial and temporal representation in the Common Element group that would hypothetically result if participants integrate spatial and temporal information through superimposition of the element common to the training phases (i.e., B) and the expected responding based on these integrations (i.e., where and when the outcome should appear on the grid).

Figure 3

The results of Experiment 2. Mean latency of response (i.e., expectation of the outcome) for the stimulus-A test trial in the Common Element and no Common Element groups. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means. Temporal integration is evidenced in the higher latency to respond during stimulus-A presentation in the Common Element group than in the no Common Element group.

Figure 4

The results of Experiment 3. Mean latency of response for the stimulus-A test trial in the Common Element and No Common Element groups. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means.