Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:28:18.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Navigating through a volumetric world does not imply needing a full three-dimensional representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2013

Claus-Christian Carbon  and
Vera M. Hesslinger
Claus-Christian Carbon
Affiliation:
Department of General Psychology and Methodology and Graduate School of Affective and Cognitive Sciences, University of Bamberg, D-96047 Bamberg, Bavaria, Germany. ccc@experimental-psychology.comwww.experimental-psychology.comvera.hesslinger@uni-bamberg.de
Vera M. Hesslinger
Affiliation:
Department of General Psychology and Methodology and Graduate School of Affective and Cognitive Sciences, University of Bamberg, D-96047 Bamberg, Bavaria, Germany. ccc@experimental-psychology.comwww.experimental-psychology.comvera.hesslinger@uni-bamberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Jeffery et al. extensively and thoroughly describe how different species navigate through a three-dimensional environment. Undeniably, the world offers numerous three-dimensional opportunities. However, we argue that for most navigation tasks a two-dimensional representation is nevertheless sufficient, as physical conditions and limitations such as gravity, thermoclines, or layers of earth encountered in a specific situation provide the very elevation data the navigating individual needs.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 547 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Foo, P., Warren, W. H., Duchon, A. & Tarr, M. J. (2005) Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31(2):195–215.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Holbrook, R. I. & Burt de Perera, T. B. (2009) Separate encoding of vertical and horizontal components of space during orientation in fish. Animal Behaviour 78(2):241–45.Google Scholar
Hölscher, C., Meilinger, T., Vrachliotis, G., Brösamle, M. & Knauff, M. (2006) Up the down staircase: Wayfinding strategies and multi-level buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26(4):284–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, M. (1994) Spatial vision in the honeybee: The use of different cues in different tasks. Vision Research 34(18):2363–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montello, D. R. (1991) The measurement of cognitive distance: Methods and construct-validity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11(2):101–22.Google Scholar
Montello, D. R. & Pick, H. L. (1993) Integrating knowledge of vertically aligned large-scale spaces. Environment and Behavior 25(3):457–84.Google Scholar
Nieh, J. C. & Roubik, D. W. (1998) Potential mechanisms for the communication of height and distance by a stingless bee, Melipona panamica . Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 43(6):387–99.Google Scholar
Thibault, G., Pasqualotto, A., Vidal, M., Droulez, J. & Berthoz, A. (2013) How does horizontal and vertical navigation influence spatial memory of multi-floored environments? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 75(1):10–15. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0405-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar