Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33792831›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2021

The art gallery maze: a novel tool to assess human navigational abilities.

Hamed Taheri Gorji, Michela Leocadi, Francesco Grassi, Gaspare Galati

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

4 authors.

Hamed Taheri GorjiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. hamed.taherigorji@uniroma1.it.
Michela LeocadiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesco GrassiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Gaspare GalatiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Spatial NavigationCuesHumansIndividualityMaze LearningSpatial Memory6-arm Radial mazeArt gallery mazeIntentional and incidental instructionsNavigational strategiesSpatial navigation

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.