ArticleSpatial cognition and computation2025
Test-retest reliability of visual and self-motion cue combination during navigation: Accuracy, variability, and cue weighting.
Article in Spatial cognition and computation, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multisensory cue combination during navigation is examined for the relative use and integration of different sensory spatial cues, but the reliability of cue combination metrics has not yet been characterized. We quantify the test-retest reliability of three metrics (accuracy, variability, predicted cue-weighting) used in studies of sensory cue combination for spatial updating. Participants completed a triangular homing task in immersive virtual reality comprising three cue conditions - visual cues-only, self-motion cues-only, and visual + self-motion cues - in two sessions separated by an average 11-day interval. We found strong test-retest reliability of homing accuracy with two sensory cues but poor reliability of accuracy when only one sensory cue was available. Homing variability and predicted cue-weighting showed poor test-retest reliability across all conditions.
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.