Modeling Mental Navigation in Scenes with Multiple Objects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various lines of evidence indicate that animals process spatial information regarding object locations differently from spatial information regarding environmental boundaries or landmarks. Following Wang and Spelke's (2002) observation that spatial updating of egocentric representations appears to lie at the heart of many navigational tasks in many species, including humans, we postulate a neural circuit that can support this computation in parietal cortex, assuming that egocentric representations of multiple objects can be maintained in prefrontal cortex in spatial working memory (not simulated here). Our method is a generalization of an earlier model by Droulez and Berthoz (1991), with extensions to support observer rotation. We can thereby simulate perspective transformation of working memory representations of object coordinates based on an egomotion signal presumed to be generated via mental navigation. This biologically plausible transformation would allow a subject to recall the locations of previously viewed objects from novel viewpoints reached via imagined, discontinuous, or disoriented displacement. Finally, we discuss how this model can account for a wide range of experimental findings regarding memory for object locations, and we present several predictions made by the model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it