IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1009222.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction

Author

Listed:
  • Sevan K Harootonian
  • Arne D Ekstrom
  • Robert C Wilson

Abstract

Successful navigation requires the ability to compute one’s location and heading from incoming multisensory information. Previous work has shown that this multisensory input comes in two forms: body-based idiothetic cues, from one’s own rotations and translations, and visual allothetic cues, from the environment (usually visual landmarks). However, exactly how these two streams of information are integrated is unclear, with some models suggesting the body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues are combined, while others suggest they compete. In this paper we investigated the integration of body-based idiothetic and visual allothetic cues in the computation of heading using virtual reality. In our experiment, participants performed a series of body turns of up to 360 degrees in the dark with only a brief flash (300ms) of visual feedback en route. Because the environment was virtual, we had full control over the visual feedback and were able to vary the offset between this feedback and the true heading angle. By measuring the effect of the feedback offset on the angle participants turned, we were able to determine the extent to which they incorporated visual feedback as a function of the offset error. By further modeling this behavior we were able to quantify the computations people used. While there were considerable individual differences in performance on our task, with some participants mostly ignoring the visual feedback and others relying on it almost entirely, our modeling results suggest that almost all participants used the same strategy in which idiothetic and allothetic cues are combined when the mismatch between them is small, but compete when the mismatch is large. These findings suggest that participants update their estimate of heading using a hybrid strategy that mixes the combination and competition of cues.Author summary: Successful navigation requires us to combine visual information about our environment with body-based cues about our own rotations and translations. In this work we investigated how these disparate sources of information work together to compute an estimate of heading. Using a novel virtual reality task we measured how humans integrate visual and body-based cues when there is mismatch between them—that is, when the estimate of heading from visual information is different from body-based cues. By building computational models of different strategies, we reveal that humans use a hybrid strategy for integrating visual and body-based cues—combining them when the mismatch between them is small and picking one or the other when the mismatch is large.

Suggested Citation

  • Sevan K Harootonian & Arne D Ekstrom & Robert C Wilson, 2022. "Combination and competition between path integration and landmark navigation in the estimation of heading direction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-26, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009222
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009222
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009222
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009222&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009222?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David R Wozny & Ulrik R Beierholm & Ladan Shams, 2010. "Probability Matching as a Computational Strategy Used in Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-7, August.
    2. Sevan K Harootonian & Robert C Wilson & Lukáš Hejtmánek & Eli M Ziskin & Arne D Ekstrom, 2020. "Path integration in large-scale space and with novel geometries: Comparing vector addition and encoding-error models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-27, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Srishti Goel & Julian Jara-Ettinger & Desmond C. Ong & Maria Gendron, 2024. "Face and context integration in emotion inference is limited and variable across categories and individuals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Yang Qi & Pulin Gong, 2022. "Fractional neural sampling as a theory of spatiotemporal probabilistic computations in neural circuits," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    4. Wendy J Adams, 2016. "The Development of Audio-Visual Integration for Temporal Judgements," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.
    6. Mauersberger, Felix, 2019. "Thompson Sampling: Endogenously Random Behavior in Games and Markets," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203600, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    8. Jeroen Atsma & Femke Maij & Mathieu Koppen & David E Irwin & W Pieter Medendorp, 2016. "Causal Inference for Spatial Constancy across Saccades," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Peter W Battaglia & Daniel Kersten & Paul R Schrater, 2011. "How Haptic Size Sensations Improve Distance Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-13, June.
    10. Luigi Acerbi & Kalpana Dokka & Dora E Angelaki & Wei Ji Ma, 2018. "Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-38, July.
    11. James R H Cooke & Arjan C ter Horst & Robert J van Beers & W Pieter Medendorp, 2017. "Effect of depth information on multiple-object tracking in three dimensions: A probabilistic perspective," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Richard F Murray & Khushbu Patel & Alan Yee, 2015. "Posterior Probability Matching and Human Perceptual Decision Making," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Elyse H Norton & Luigi Acerbi & Wei Ji Ma & Michael S Landy, 2019. "Human online adaptation to changes in prior probability," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    14. Sophie Smit & Anina N Rich & Regine Zopf, 2019. "Visual body form and orientation cues do not modulate visuo-tactile temporal integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Christoph Kayser & Ladan Shams, 2015. "Multisensory Causal Inference in the Brain," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-7, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1009222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.