The role of experience in location estimation: Target distributions shift location memory biases

Abstract

Research based on the Category Adjustment model concluded that the spatial distribution of target locations does not influence location estimation responses [Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L., Corrigan, B., & Crawford, L. E. (2004). Spatial categories and the estimation of location. Cognition, 93, 75-97]. This conflicts with earlier results showing that location estimation is biased relative to the spatial distribution of targets [Spencer, J. P., & Hund, A. M. (2002). Prototypes and particulars: Geometric and experience-dependent spatial categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 16-37]. Here, we resolve this controversy by using a task based on Huttenlocher et al. (Experiment 4) with minor modifications to enhance our ability to detect experience-dependent effects. Results after the first block of trials replicate the pattern reported in Huttenlocher et al. After additional experience, however, participants showed biases that significantly shifted according to the target distributions. These results are consistent with the Dynamic Field Theory, an alternative theory of spatial cognition that integrates long-term memory traces across trials relative to the perceived structure of the task space.

Figure 1

Target locations presented in the (a) HV and (b) X distribution conditions. Labeled target locations indicate the four common targets analyzed in each quadrant (±22°, ±37°, ±52°, ±67°). Positive memory biases (solid line arrows) indicate errors in the direction away from the vertical axis. Negative memory biases (dotted line arrows) indicate errors in the direction toward the vertical axis.

Figure 2

Mean location memory responses in Block 1 across target locations and conditions, shown separately for each quadrant. Positive values indicate errors away from the vertical axis; negative values indicate errors toward the vertical axis (away from the horizontal axis). To facilitate comparisons between quadrants and preserve the relevant relations from the directional coding scheme used by Huttenlocher et al. (2004), target locations are plotted according to their angular deviation from the vertical axis.

Figure 3

Comparison of performance between Block 1 and Block 4 for (a) HV and (b) X distributions, collapsed across targets equidistant from the vertical axis in each quadrant (see text and Table 2 for details). (c) Change in location memory biases from Block 1 to Block 4 across conditions.

Figure 4

(a) Simulation results for HV and X distributions in Block 1. (b) Differences in mean bias between Block 1 and Block 4 for HV and X distributions. Accumulation of traces in LTM across blocks for HV (c) and X (d) conditions.