Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26224259›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2015

Route memory in an unfamiliar homogeneous environment: a comparison of two strategies.

Ahmed Sameer, Braj Bhushan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ahmed SameerDepartment of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, 208 016, India, asameer@iitk.ac.in.
Braj Bhushan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans use many strategies for navigation. Strategies utilizing cognitive salience of landmark have not been tested for application. In this study, we compared two strategies that humans use while navigating in an unfamiliar homogenous environment to remember the route. First strategy, called route learning, involved remembering sequence of turns, while second strategy used a commonly known memory technique method of loci with slight modification. In route learning, participants did not rely on any landmark (no-landmark condition), while in method of loci they visualized personally significant landmarks (imagined condition). Two videos, each having nine identical turns (3 rights, 3 lefts and 3 straights) with no distinguishing feature at any turn, were developed using Trimble Sketchup and shown to 32 participants. The experiment was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, participants generated a list of personally known items to be used as landmarks. In the second phase, they saw the first video and were required to remember the sequence of turns. In the second video, they were required to imagine a landmark from the list generated in the first phase at each turn and associate the turn with the imaginary landmark. In both the tasks, the participants were asked to recall the sequence of turns as it appeared in the video. In the third phase, the participants were again asked to recall the sequence of turns. Result showed that memory of route was better without landmarks compared to imaginary landmark condition. This difference was insignificant when participants were tested again 20 min later. However, route memory was still better for no-landmark condition. The finding does not support earlier findings on route memory. Potential uses of method of loci for human wayfinding are mentioned.

Indexed as

EnvironmentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansImaginationMaleMental RecallPhotic StimulationSpace PerceptionSpatial BehaviorUser-Computer InterfaceYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.