ArticleScientific reports2026
Uncovering persistent biases in human path integration by separating left and right trials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Navigation ability strongly varies between humans. Careful analysis of errors occurring in navigation, or indeed any cognitive process, offers insight into the underlying mechanisms at different levels. While analyses at the individual level allow nuanced identification of error persistences across conditions and time, the population level facilitates generalisation but precludes conclusions about lower-level phenomena. Regarding the critical navigation mechanism of path integration-the continuous tracking of navigated paths for self-localisation-previous studies have focused on population-level analyses, revealing systematic errors in estimating the travelled angles and distances. However, at the individual level, there are indications that people also possess left or right biases that are classically overlooked when pooling left and right trials. Therefore, we carefully investigate individual path integration errors in (1) a re-analysis of data from several influential human navigation studies, and (2) our own virtual reality path integration experiment. For both, we confirm time-persistent individual side biases, but find no evidence for consistent errors at the population level, suggesting that important aspects in human navigation performance might be overlooked by averaging across sides.
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.