Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38835838›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2024

Not seeing the forest for the trees: combination of path integration and landmark cues in human virtual navigation.

Jonas Scherer, Martin M Müller, Patrick Unterbrink, Sina Meier, Martin Egelhaaf, Olivier J N Bertrand, Norbert Boeddeker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Path integration and optic flow in flying insects: a review of current evidence.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Jonas Scherer *Department of Neurobiology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Martin M Müller *Department of Neurobiology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Patrick UnterbrinkDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Sina MeierDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Martin EgelhaafDepartment of Neurobiology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Olivier J N BertrandDepartment of Neurobiology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Norbert BoeddekerDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In order to successfully move from place to place, our brain often combines sensory inputs from various sources by dynamically weighting spatial cues according to their reliability and relevance for a given task. Two of the most important cues in navigation are the spatial arrangement of landmarks in the environment, and the continuous path integration of travelled distances and changes in direction. Several studies have shown that Bayesian integration of cues provides a good explanation for navigation in environments dominated by small numbers of easily identifiable landmarks. However, it remains largely unclear how cues are combined in more complex environments. Methods: To investigate how humans process and combine landmarks and path integration in complex environments, we conducted a series of triangle completion experiments in virtual reality, in which we varied the number of landmarks from an open steppe to a dense forest, thus going beyond the spatially simple environments that have been studied in the past. We analysed spatial behaviour at both the population and individual level with linear regression models and developed a computational model, based on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), to infer the underlying combination of cues. Results: Overall homing performance was optimal in an environment containing three landmarks arranged around the goal location. With more than three landmarks, individual differences between participants in the use of cues are striking. For some, the addition of landmarks does not worsen their performance, whereas for others it seems to impair their use of landmark information. Discussion: It appears that navigation success in complex environments depends on the ability to identify the correct clearing around the goal location, suggesting that some participants may not be able to see the forest for the trees.

Indexed as

cluttercue integrationhominghumanlandmarkspath integrationspatial navigationvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID38835838
PMCPMC11148297

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.