Individual differences in using geometric and featural cues to maintain spatial orientation: Cue quantity and cue ambiguity are more important than cue type

Two experiments explored the role of environmental cues in maintaining spatial orientation (sense of selflocation and direction) during locomotion. Of particular interest was the importance of geometric cues (provided by environmental surfaces) and featural cues (nongeometric properties provided by striped walls) in maintaining spatial orientation. Participants performed a spatial updating task within virtual environments containing geometric or featural cues that were ambiguous or unambiguous indicators of self-location and direction. Cue type (geometric or featural) did not affect performance, but the number and ambiguity of environmental cues did. Gender differences, interpreted as a proxy for individual differences in spatial ability and/or experience, highlight the interaction between cue quantity and ambiguity. When environmental cues were ambiguous, men stayed oriented with either one or two cues, whereas women stayed oriented only with two. When environmental cues were unambiguous, women stayed oriented with one cue.     

Spatial and temporal contributions to the structure of spatial memory.

Three experiments investigated the effects of spatial and temporal contiguity in item recognition, location judgment, and distance estimation tasks. Ss learned the locations of object names in spatial arrays, which were divided into 2 regions. The names of locations were presented during map learning so that critical pairs appeared close in space and close in time, close in space but far in time, far in space but close in time, and far in space and far in time. Names primed each other in recognition only when they were neighbors in both space and time. In contrast, the effects of spatial and temporal contiguity in priming in location judgments were additive. Finally, temporal contiguity affected estimates of Euclidean distance when locations were close together, but not when they were far apart.     

How to Assess a Model's Testability and Identifiability

Formal definitions are given of the following intuitive concepts: (a) A model is quantitatively testable if its predictions are highly precise and narrow. (b) A model is identifiable if the values of its parameters can be ascertained from empirical observations. (c) A model is redundant if the values of some parameters can be deduced from others or if the values of some observables can be deduced from others. Various rules of thumb for nonredundant models are examined. The Counting Rule states that a model is quantitatively testable if and only if it has fewer parameters than observables. This rule can be safely applied only to identifiable models. If a model is unidentifiable, one must apply a generalization of the Counting Rule known as the Jacobian Rule. This rule states that a model is quantitatively testable if and only if the maximum rank (i.e., the number of linearly independent columns) of its Jacobian matrix (i.e., the matrix of partial derivatives of the function that maps parameter values to the predicted values of observables) is smaller than the number of observables. The Identifiability Rule states that a model is identifiable if and only if the maximum rank of its Jacobian matrix equals the number of parameters. The conclusions provided by these rules are only presumptive. To reach definitive conclusions, additional analyses must be performed. To illustrate the foregoing, the quantitative testability and identifiability of linear models and of discrete-state models are analyzed. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.     

Binocular Rivalry Disrupts Visual Priming

Many results implicate perceptual processing in repetition priming, but little is known of potential mechanisms for priming. A new method was used to help determine the processing stage at which priming occurs. Priming pictures were presented under dominance or suppression generated by binocular rivalry. Although low-level, sensory attributes can be processed under rivalry suppression, there is no evidence that repetition priming can be supported by such low-level processing. Priming was found only for stimuli that were processed sufficiently to be identified in the priming stage. The results demonstrate that repetition priming requires processing of stimulus attributes into relatively high-level representations.