ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2021
Cue combination in goal-oriented navigation.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined cue combination of self-motion and landmark cues in goal-localisation. In an immersive virtual environment, before walking a two-leg path, participants learned the locations of three goal objects (one at the path origin, that is, home) and landmarks. After walking the path without seeing landmarks or goals, participants indicated the locations of the home and non-home goals in four conditions: (1) path integration only, (2) landmarks only, (3) both path integration and the landmarks, and (4) path integration and rotated landmarks. The ratio of the length between the testing position (P) and the turning point (T) over the length between the T and the three goals (G) (i.e., PT/TG) was manipulated. The results showed the cue combination consistently for participants' heading estimates but not for goal-localisation. In Experiments 1 and 2 (using distal landmarks), the cue combination for goal estimates appeared in a small length ratio (PT/TG = 0.5) but disappeared in a large length ratio (PT/TG = 2). In Experiments 3 and 4 (using proximal landmarks), while the cue combination disappeared for the home with a medium length ratio (PT/TG = 1), it appeared for the non-home goal with a large length ratio (PT/TG = 2) and only disappeared with a very large length ratio (PT/TG = 3). These findings are explained by a model stipulating that cue combination occurs in self-localisation (e.g., heading estimates), which leads to one estimate of the goal location; proximal landmarks produce another goal location estimate; these two goal estimates are then combined, which may only occur for non-home goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.