The effects of cue placement on the relative dominance of boundaries and landmark arrays in goal localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of visual features are identified as reference points used by individuals to encode locations: surface-based boundaries and discrete-object-based landmarks. Previous research show that learning locations relative to a boundary can overshadow learning relative to a landmark, but not vice versa, suggesting that environmental boundaries play a privileged role in representing individual locations. However, other research has revealed that a less accurate cognitive map is derived from boundary-related learning than from landmark-related learning, suggesting that a boundary is less privileged in representing inter-location spatial relations. The current study aims to reconcile these inconsistent findings. Experiment 1, using both a cue-competition paradigm and a cognitive mapping task, replicated the finding that participants preferred a circular boundary to a four-landmark array for encoding four locations (1A), but that the cognitive maps of the locations derived from the landmark array were more accurate (1B). Using the cue-competition paradigm, Experiments 2-4 manipulated the placement and distinctiveness of the two cues. The results showed that manipulating the placement of the landmark array effectively modulated the relative reliance upon the boundary/landmark-array in encoding individual location. Whereas increasing the distinctiveness of the landmark-array alone is not sufficient to eliminate the boundary advantage in localization. We propose that the boundary privilege occurs in selecting reference points for encoding locations due to its relative peripheral placement in the environment, whereas the landmark advantage occurs in inferring inter-location spatial relations due to the common reference point provided by the single landmark.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".