When your border and my border differ: Spatial regionalisation and route choice depends on perceived landmark categorization
LeVinh, L.; Mallot, H. A.
Show abstract
Humans spontaneously structure spatial environments into a hierarchy of regions. Besides connectivity and boundaries, sensory or functional similarities of landmarks have been shown to influence construction of regions. In natural spaces, regions and places are usually named and these names provide additional cues for the cognitive construction of regions. In this study we investigate the role of semantic similarities of place names in the formation of regions in a virtual environment with homogeneous connectivity. Place names were selected and distributed in a way that two alternative semantic categorizations were possible which corresponded to two equally valid regionalisations of the same environment. Region perception was assessed by having subjects choose between two equidistant routes crossing different numbers of region boundaries (classification consistent route choice). In a priming phase, subjects were biased to sort the landmark names in one or the other categorization scheme. In the test phase, subjects preferably selected routes with a lower number of region crossings according to the categorization previously discovered. The results show that perceived semantic similarity of place names does affect route choice and the formation of spatial regions.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Model-free decision making resists improved instructions and is enhanced by stimulus-response associations 95%
- Illusory tactile movement crosses arms and legs and is coded in external space 92%
- Frontal-midline theta and posterior alpha oscillations index early processing of spatial representations during active navigation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.