Predicting real-world navigation performance from a virtual navigation task in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality environments presented on tablets and smartphones offer a novel way of measuring navigation skill and predicting real-world navigation problems. The extent to which such virtual tests are effective at predicting navigation in older populations remains unclear. We compared the performance of 20 older participants (54-74 years old) in wayfinding tasks in a real-world environment in London, UK, and in similar tasks designed in a mobile app-based test of navigation (Sea Hero Quest). In a previous study with young participants (18-35 years old), we were able to predict navigation performance in real-world tasks in London and Paris using this mobile app. We find that for the older cohort, virtual navigation performance predicts real-world performance for medium difficulty, but not for the easy or difficult environments. While the younger sample outperformed the older sample in the virtual task, this was not the case in the real-world task, which conflicts with the dominant view of a decline in navigation ability with age. Self-reports identifying compensatory skills and further analysis of our participants’ scores in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and in the Navigation Strategy Questionnaire help give insights into the higher performance in the real world. Overall, our study supports the utility of using digital tests of spatial cognition in older age groups, while carefully adapting the task difficulty to the population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".