ArticleScientific reports2024
Manipulating objects during learning shrinks the global scale of spatial representations in memory: a virtual reality study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Challenges and insights of transferring animal maze studies principles to human spatial learning research.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Goal-directed approaches to perception usually consider that distance perception is shaped by the body and its potential for interaction. Although this phenomenon has been extensively investigated in the field of perception, little is known about the effect of motor interactions on memory, and how they shape the global representation of large-scale spaces. To investigate this question, we designed an immersive virtual reality environment in which participants had to learn the positions of several items. Half of the participants had to physically (but virtually) grab the items with their hand and drop them at specified locations (active condition). The other half of the participants were simply shown the items which appeared at the specified position without interacting with them (passive condition). Half of the items used during learning were images of manipulable objects, and the other half were non manipulable objects. Participants were subsequently asked to draw a map of the virtual environment from memory, and to position all the items in it. Results show that active participants recalled the global shape of the spatial layout less precisely, and made more absolute distance errors than passive participants. Moreover, global scaling compression bias was higher for active participants than for passive participants. Interestingly, manipulable items showed a greater compression bias compared to non-manipulable items, yet they had no effect on correlation scores and absolute non-directional distance errors. These results are discussed according to grounded approaches of spatial cognition, emphasizing motor simulation as a possible mechanism for position retrieval from memory.
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.