ArticleCognitive processing2021
The art gallery maze: a novel tool to assess human navigational abilities.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of Real and Virtual Radial Arm Maze Task in Human.Brain sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans differ widely in their ability to navigate effectively through the environment and in spatial memory skills. Navigation in the environment requires the analysis of many spatial cues, the construction of internal representations, and the use of various strategies. We present a novel tool to assess individual differences in human navigation, consisting of a virtual radial-arm maze presented as an art gallery to explore whether different sets of instructions (intentional or incidental) affect subjects' navigation performance. We furthermore tested the effect of the instructions on exploration strategies during both place learning and recall. We evaluated way-finding ability in 42 subjects, and individual differences in navigation were assessed through the analysis of navigational paths, which permitted the isolation and definition of a few strategies adopted by the incidental and intentional instructions groups. Our results showed that the intentional instruction group performed better than the other group: these subjects correctly paired each central statue and the two paintings in the adjacent arms, and they made less working and reference memory errors. Our analysis of path lengths showed that the intentional instruction group spent more time in the maze (thus being slower), specifically in the central hall, and covered more distance; the time spent in the main hall was, therefore, indicative of the quality of the following performance. Studying how environmental representations and the relative navigational strategies vary among "intentional" and "incidental" groups provides a new window into the acknowledgment of possible strategies to help subjects construct more efficient approaches in human navigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33792831What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.