Cited by 261Spatial Cognition and NavigationMemory and Neural MechanismsGeography Education and Pedagogy

Active and passive contributions to spatial learning

Open access
Chrastil, Elizabeth R., Warren, William H.·2012·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

It seems intuitively obvious that active exploration of a new environment will lead to better spatial learning than will passive exposure. However, the literature on this issue is decidedly mixed-in part, because the concept itself is not well defined. We identify five potential components of active spatial learning and review the evidence regarding their role in the acquisition of landmark, route, and survey knowledge. We find that (1) idiothetic information in walking contributes to metric survey knowledge, (2) there is little evidence as yet that decision making during exploration contributes to route or survey knowledge, (3) attention to place-action associations and relevant spatial relations contributes to route and survey knowledge, although landmarks and boundaries appear to be learned without effort, (4) route and survey information are differentially encoded in subunits of working memory, and (5) there is preliminary evidence that mental manipulation of such properties facilitates spatial learning. Idiothetic information appears to be necessary to reveal the influence of attention and, possibly, decision making in survey learning, which may explain the mixed results in desktop virtual reality. Thus, there is indeed an active advantage in spatial learning, which manifests itself in the task-dependent acquisition of route and survey knowledge.

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 · 10.3758/s13423-011-0182-x

Cites

116 of 116 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?

  • The negative effects of mobile maps are primarily attributed to changes in wayfinders' visual behavior and to users entering a passive navigation state where navigation is delegated to the map aid.

    “The negative effects of mobile maps are primarily attributed to changes in wayfinders’ visual behavior (Gardony et al., 2013, 2015; Hejtmánek et al., 2018) and to users entering a passive navigation state where the task of navigation is delegated to the map aid (Chrastil & Warren, 2012; Ishikawa, 2019; Willis et al., 2009).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Chrastil & Warren, 2012

    The Components of active learning section (page unavailable) distinguishes making route decisions from following a prescribed route and suggests that the two may direct attention differently. But the Conclusions and future directions section says evidence for a decision-making advantage is small and unreliable. The paper does not establish that mobile maps cause a passive navigation state or that delegation to a map aid is a primary cause of their negative effects; the visual-behavior clause is cited to other sources. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Looking at irrelevant information is associated with poorer spatial knowledge development, whilst engagement with relevant information is better for spatial learning.

    “Put simply, looking at irrelevant information is associated with poorer spatial knowledge development, whilst engagement with relevant information is better for spatial learning (Chrastil & Warren, 2012; Gardony et al., 2013, 2015; Hejtmánek et al., 2018; Willis et al., 2009).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Chrastil & Warren, 2012

    The paper’s ‘Differential attention to environmental properties’ section (page unavailable) reports that attending to landmarks at the expense of turns can impair route learning, supporting the claim that attention to less relevant information can hinder some spatial learning. But ‘Idiothetic information during walking’ (page unavailable) reports no consistent effect of attending to spatial layout rather than objects across spatial tests. The source therefore does not support the sentence’s general claim that looking at irrelevant information worsens spatial knowledge while engagement with relevant information improves it. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The rate of spatial knowledge acquisition declines as the mobile map aid reduces the allocation of attentional resources to task-relevant environmental features important for spatial learning.

    “Consequently, the rate of spatial knowledge acquisition declines as the mobile map aid reduces the allocation of attentional resources to task-relevant environmental features that are important for spatial learning (Chrastil & Warren, 2012; Gardony et al., 2013, 2015; Hejtmánek et al., 2018; Willis et al., 2009).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Chrastil & Warren, 2012

    The Conclusions and future directions section says that attention to relevant environmental properties contributes to route and survey knowledge. The paper does not establish that a mobile map aid reduces that attention or slows the rate of spatial knowledge acquisition. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The lack of direct influence of landmark visualization styles on spatial learning measures can be attributed to depicting landmarks as 3D building models in both conditions on the mobile map providing the necessary visual information to facilitate basic spatial learning required to solve the navigation task.

    “The lack of direct influence of landmark visualization styles on spatial learning measures can be attributed to the fact that depicting landmarks as 3D building models in both conditions on the mobile map could have provided the necessary visual information to facilitate the basic spatial learning required to solve the navigation task (Chrastil & Warren, 2012; Elias & Paelke, 2008; Kapaj et al., 2”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Chrastil & Warren, 2012

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • When wayfinders are informed that their environmental knowledge will be tested, they exhibit different spatial learning strategies and visual attention behavior as opposed to when they are not made aware of upcoming assessments.

    “Previous research has shown that when wayfinders are informed that their environmental knowledge will be tested, they exhibit different spatial learning strategies and visual attention behavior as opposed to when they are not made aware of upcoming assessments (Chrastil & Warren, 2012; Van Asselen et al., 2006; Wenczel et al., 2017).”

    From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Chrastil & Warren, 2012

    In “Incidental and intentional learning of spatial information” (page not supplied), the paper reports that people told they would be tested on a route learned it more accurately than those not told, and it describes different memorization strategies in an intentional-versus-incidental learning study. It discusses attention as an explanation, but these passages do not establish a difference in observed visual attention behavior between test-aware and unaware wayfinders. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

4 of the 120 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chrastil, E. R. (2011). Neural correlates of landmark, route, and survey knowledge in human navigation. Manuscript under review
  2. Kearns, M. J. (2003). The roles of vision and body senses in a homing task: The visual environment matters (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Providence: Brown University.
  3. In C. Holscher, T. Shipley, M. Olivetti Belardinelli, J. Bateman, & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial cognition VII: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 234-247). Berlin: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Chrastil, Elizabeth R.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2011-11-15
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
1-23
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2060498941
Cited by
261
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geography Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
spatial learning, active exploration, passive exposure, landmark learning, route learning, survey knowledge, working memory, attention, decision-making, virtual reality, spatial relations
MeSH terms
Attention, Decision Making, Exploratory Behavior, Humans, Learning, Spatial Behavior, Problem-Based Learning

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