Cited by 58Spatial Cognition and NavigationMemory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Mental simulation of routes during navigation involves adaptive temporal compression

Open access
Arnold, Aiden E.G.F., Iaria, Giuseppe, Ekstrom, Arne D.·2016·Cognition

Abstract

Mental simulation is a hallmark feature of human cognition, allowing features from memories to be flexibly used during prospection. While past studies demonstrate the preservation of real-world features such as size and distance during mental simulation, their temporal dynamics remains unknown. Here, we compare mental simulations to navigation of routes in a large-scale spatial environment to test the hypothesis that such simulations are temporally compressed in an adaptive manner. Our results show that simulations occurred at 2.39× the speed it took to navigate a route, increasing in compression (3.57×) for slower movement speeds. Participant self-reports of vividness and spatial coherence of simulations also correlated strongly with simulation duration, providing an important link between subjective experiences of simulated events and how spatial representations are combined during prospection. These findings suggest that simulation of spatial events involve adaptive temporal mechanisms, mediated partly by the fidelity of memories used to generate the simulation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.009

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There was a higher compression rate after a slow vs. a fast encoding condition, but no difference between a medium and slow encoding condition.

    “there was a higher compression rate after a slow vs. a fast encoding condition (but no difference between a medium and slow encoding condition, perhaps because an optimal compression rate had already been achieved in the medium encoding condition).”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Results report higher temporal compression in the slow than the fast condition, but they also report a significant difference between the slow and medium conditions (p < 0.001). It was the medium and fast conditions that did not differ in compression rate (p = 0.54). The separate finding of no slow–medium difference concerns simulation time, not compression rate. (LLM, conf=0.95)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Participants mentally simulated a route at a much faster rate (2.39 times) than their time to actually navigate the route, exhibiting temporal compression.

    “participants mentally simulated a route at a much faster rate (2.39 times) than their time to actually navigate the route, that is, their episodic simulations exhibited temporal compression.”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [107]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Faster simulation was positively related to how effectively and efficiently participants navigated a virtual route.

    “faster simulation was positively related to how effectively and efficiently participants navigated a virtual route.”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [107]

  • In an initial behavioral experiment, simulation times were positively correlated with navigation times.

    “An initial experiment showed that simulation times were positively correlated with navigation times.”

    From Episodic Future Thinking: Mechanisms and Functions (2017) · cites this paper as [107]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arnold, A. E. G. F., Iaria, G., & Ekstrom, A. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
Corresponding author
Ekstrom, Arne D.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
157
Pages
14-23
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2509514081
Cited by
58
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS076856)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
mental simulation, route navigation, time compression, prospection, spatial memory, simulation speed, movement speed, spatial coherence, memory fidelity, spatial representation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Mental Recall, Time Factors, Young Adult, Memory, Episodic, Spatial Memory, Spatial Navigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review