Cue interaction between buildings and street configurations during reorientation in familiar and unfamiliar outdoor environments.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments investigated how people use buildings and street configurations to reorient in large-scale environments. In immersive virtual environments, participants learned objects' locations in an intersection consisting of 4 streets. The objects' locations were specified by 2 cues: a building and/or the street configuration. During the test, participants localized objects with either or both cues. Participants were divided into a competition group and a no-competition group. The competition group learned both cues whereas the no-competition group learned the single cue for trials with single testing cue. For the trials with both testing cues, both groups learned both cues and these 2 cues were placed at the original locations or displaced relative to each other during testing. Critically, the familiarity with the environment was also manipulated: in Experiment 1, participants learned the same building at the same corner of the same intersection for all trials (familiar); in Experiment 2, participants learned different buildings at different corners of different intersections across trials (unfamiliar). The results showed that the performance in the competition group was impaired in unfamiliar environments but not in familiar environments. When displacement occurred, the participants' preference in unfamiliar environments was determined by the response accuracy of using the 2 cues respectively, whereas participants in the familiar environment preferred the street configuration with a probability higher than what was solely determined by response accuracy based on individual cues. When the 2 cues were consistent with each other, they were combined additively in both familiar and unfamiliar environments. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".