Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35143474›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction.

Sevan K Harootonian, Arne D Ekstrom, Robert C Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Theta Activity Supports Landmark-Based Correction of Naturalistic Human Path Integration.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

3 authors.

Sevan K HarootonianDepartment of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0680-2859
Arne D EkstromDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Robert C WilsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2963-2971

Funding

Representation of spatiotemporal information in human episodic memory and navigationR01NS076856 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI ARNE D EKSTROM · 2012 to 2026
$4.8M
Volumetric and connectivity measures of navigation and memory skill acquisitionR21NS120237 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI EKSTROM, ARNE D, WEISBERG, STEVEN M · 2020 to 2020
$434k
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS076856NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS120237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful navigation requires the ability to compute one's location and heading from incoming multisensory information. Previous work has shown that this multisensory input comes in two forms: body-based idiothetic cues, from one's own rotations and translations, and visual allothetic cues, from the environment (usually visual landmarks). However, exactly how these two streams of information are integrated is unclear, with some models suggesting the body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues are combined, while others suggest they compete. In this paper we investigated the integration of body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues in the computation of heading using virtual reality. In our experiment, participants performed a series of body turns of up to 360 degrees in the dark with only a brief flash (300ms) of visual feedback en route. Because the environment was virtual, we had full control over the visual feedback and were able to vary the offset between this feedback and the true heading angle. By measuring the effect of the feedback offset on the angle participants turned, we were able to determine the extent to which they incorporated visual feedback as a function of the offset error. By further modeling this behavior we were able to quantify the computations people used. While there were considerable individual differences in performance on our task, with some participants mostly ignoring the visual feedback and others relying on it almost entirely, our modeling results suggest that almost all participants used the same strategy in which idiothetic and allothetic cues are combined when the mismatch between them is small, but compete when the mismatch is large. These findings suggest that participants update their estimate of heading using a hybrid strategy that mixes the combination and competition of cues.

Indexed as

Space PerceptionVirtual RealityCuesHumans

Identifiers

PMID35143474
PMCPMC8865642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.