Editing Spatial memory (section)

==Long-term spatial memory==
Spatial memory recall is built upon a [[hierarchical structure]]. People remember the general layout of a particular space and then "cue target locations" within that spatial set.<ref name= " Chun & Jiang, 1998">{{cite journal | last1 = Chun | first1 = M. | last2 = Jiang | first2 = Y. | year = 1998 | title = Contextual Cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention | journal = Cognitive Psychology | volume = 36 | issue = 1| pages = 28–71 | doi = 10.1006/cogp.1998.0681 | pmid = 9679076 | doi-access = free }}</ref> This paradigm includes an ordinal scale of features that an individual must attend to in order to inform his or her cognitive map.<ref name="McNamara et al., 1989">{{cite journal | last1 = McNamara | first1 = T. | last2 = Hardy | first2 = J. | last3 = Hirtle | first3 = S.| year = 1989 | title = Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology | volume = 15 | issue = 2| pages = 211–227 | pmid = 2522511 | doi=10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.211 |display-authors=etal}}</ref> Recollection of spatial details is a top-down procedure that requires an individual to recall the superordinate features of a cognitive map, followed by the ordinate and subordinate features. Two spatial features are prominent in navigating a path: general layout and landmark orienting (Kahana et al., 2006). People are not only capable of learning about the spatial layout of their surroundings, but they can also piece together novel routes and new spatial relations through inference. {{cn|date=March 2025}}

A cognitive map is "a mental model of objects' spatial configuration that permits navigation along optimal path between arbitrary pairs of points."<ref name = "Newman et al., 2006">{{cite journal | last1 = Newman | first1 = E.L. | last2 = Caplan | first2 = J.B. | last3 = Kirschen | first3 = M.P. | last4 = Korolev | first4 = I.O. | last5 = Sekuler | first5 = R. | last6 = Kahana | first6 = M.J.| year = 2007 | title = Learning Your Way Around Town: How Virtual Taxicab Drivers Learn to Use Both Layout and Landmark Information | journal = [[Cognition (journal)|Cognition]] | volume = 104 | issue = 2| pages = 231–253 | doi = 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.013 | pmid = 16879816 |display-authors=etal }}</ref> This mental map is built upon two fundamental bedrocks: layout, also known as route knowledge, and landmark orientation. Layout is potentially the first method of navigation that people learn to utilize; its workings reflect our most basic understandings of the world. {{cn|date=March 2025}}

Hermer and Spelke (1994) determined that when toddlers begin to walk, around eighteen months, they navigate by their sense of the world's layout. McNamara, Hardy and Hirtle identified region membership as a major building block of anyone's cognitive map (1989). Specifically, region membership is defined by any kind of boundary, whether physical, perceptual or subjective (McNamara et al., 1989). Boundaries are among the most basic and endemic qualities in the world around us. These boundaries are nothing more than axial lines which are a feature that people are biased towards when relating to space; for example, one axial line determinant is gravity (McNamara & Shelton, 2001; Kim & Penn, 2004). Axial lines aid everyone in apportioning our perceptions into regions. This parceled world idea is further supported by the finding that items that get recalled together are more likely than not to also be clustered within the same region of one's larger cognitive map.<ref name="McNamara et al., 1989"/> Clustering shows that people tend to chunk information together according to smaller layouts within a larger cognitive map. {{cn|date=March 2025}}

Boundaries are not the only determinants of layout. Clustering also demonstrates another important property of relation to spatial conceptions, which is that spatial recall is a hierarchical process. When someone recalls an environment or navigates terrain, that person implicitly recalls the overall layout at first. Then, due to the concept's "rich correlational structure", a series of associations become activated.<ref name = "Chun & Jiang, 1998" /> Eventually, the resulting cascade of activations will awaken the particular details that correspond with the region being recalled. This is how people encode many entities from varying ontological levels, such as the location of a stapler; in a desk; which is in the office.

One can recall from only one region at a time (a bottleneck). A bottleneck in a person's cognitive navigational system could be an issue. For instance, if there were a need for a sudden detour on a long road trip. Lack of experience in a locale, or simply sheer size, can disorient one's mental layout, especially in a large and unfamiliar place with many overwhelming stimuli. In these environments, people are still able to orient themselves, and find their way around using landmarks. This ability to "prioritize objects and regions in complex scenes for selection (and) recognition" was labeled by Chun and Jiang in 1998. Landmarks give people guidance by activating "learned associations between the global context and target locations."<ref name = "Chun & Jiang, 1998" /> Mallot and Gillner (2000) showed that subjects learned an association between a specific landmark and the direction of a turn, thereby furthering the relationship between associations and landmarks.<ref name = " Mallot & Gillner, 2000">{{cite journal |vauthors = Gillner S, Mallot H |year=2000 |title=The role of global and local landmarks in virtual environment navigation |journal=[[Perception (journal)|Perception]] |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=69–83 |doi=10.1162/105474600566628 |hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-0013-E7E9-0 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Shelton and McNamara (2001) succinctly summed up why landmarks, as markers, are so helpful: "location...cannot be described without making reference to the orientation of the observer."

People use both the layout of a particular space and the presence of orienting landmarks in order to navigate. Psychologists have yet to explain whether layout affects landmarks or if landmarks determine the boundaries of a layout. Because of this, the concept suffers from a [[chicken and the egg]] paradox. McNamara has found that subjects use "clusters of landmarks as intrinsic frames of reference," which only confuses the issue further.<ref name = "Newman et al., 2006" />

People perceive objects in their environment relative to other objects in that same environment. Landmarks and layout are complementary systems for spatial recall, but it is unknown how these two systems interact when both types of information are available. As a result, people have to make certain assumptions about the interaction between the two systems. For example, cognitive maps are not "absolute" but rather, as anyone can attest, are "used to provide a default...(which) modulated according to...task demands."<ref name = "Chun & Jiang, 1998" /> Psychologists also think that cognitive maps are instance based, which accounts for "discriminative matching to past experience."<ref name = "Chun & Jiang, 1998" />

This field has traditionally been hampered by confounding variables, such as cost and the potential for previous exposure to an experimental environment. Technological advancements, including those in virtual reality technology, have made findings more accessible. Virtual reality affords experimenters the luxury of extreme control over their test environment. Any variable can be manipulated, including things that would not be possible in reality.