Abstract
In order to study the influence of intentional and incidental learning conditions on route learning, young adults walked a route through a university building. Half of the participants focused their attention on the route (intentional learning condition), while the other half did not (incidental learning condition). Five tests of spatial knowledge were employed: a route-length-estimation, landmark recognition, landmark ordering, map-drawing and navigation task. The intentional group performed better than the incidental group on the map-drawing and navigation task. No difference between the intentional and incidental group was found on the landmark-recognition and landmark-ordering task. Moreover, the intentional group overestimated the walking distance, while the incidental group underestimated it. These results suggest that route knowledge (landmark recognition and landmark ordering) requires less effortful processing than survey knowledge (developing a map-like representation and actual navigation).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Performance on the landmark recognition and landmark-ordering task seem to be naturally linked, since they both involve recognition of landmarks. Possibly, the non-significant effect that is found for the landmark-ordering task might result from the non-significant effect for the landmark recognition task. No attempt to solve this interdependence was made.
References
Albert, W. S., Reinitz, M. T., Beusmans, J. M., & Gopal, S. (1999). The role of attention in spatial learning during simulated route navigation. Environment and planning A, 31, 1459–1472.
Allen, G. L., & Willenborg, L. J. (1998). The need for controlled information processing in the visual acquisition of route knowledge. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 419–427.
Annooshian, L. J., & Seibert, P. S. (1996). Diversity within spatial cognition: memory processes underlying place recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 281–299.
Barrash, J. (1994). Age-related decline in route learning ability. Developmental Neuropsychology, 10, 189–201.
Berthoz, A. (1999). Hippocampal and parietal contribution to topokinetic and topgraphic memory. In N. Burgess, K. J. Jeffery, & J. O’Keefe (Eds.), The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition (pp. 381–403). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bhalla, M., Proffitt, D. R. (1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076–1096.
Cornell, E. H., Heth, C. D., Alberts, D. M. (1994). Place recognition and way finding by children and adults. Memory & Cognition, 22, 633–643.
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356–388.
Herman, J. F., Kolker, R. G., & Shaw, M. L. (1982). Effects of motor activity on children’s intentional and incidental memory for spatial locations. Child Development, 53, 239–224.
Lindberg, E., & Gärling, T. (1981). Acquisition of locational information about reference points during locomotion with and without a concurrent task: effects of number of reference points. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 109–115.
Lindberg, E., & Gärling, T. (1982). Acquisition of locomotion with and without a concurrent task: effects of number of reference points. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 23, 207–218.
Lindberg, E., & Gärling, T. (1983). Acquisition of different types of locational information in cognitive maps: automatic or effortful processes. Psychological Research, 45, 19–38.
Lipman, P. D. (1991). Age and exposure differences in acquisition of route information. Psychology and Aging, 6, 128–133.
MacMillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Magliano, J. P., Cohen, R., Allen, G. L., & Rodrigue, J. R. (1995). The impact of wayfinder’s goals on learning a new environment: different types of spatial knowledge as goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 65–75.
Montello, D. R. (1997). The perception and cognition of environmental distance: direct sources of information. In C. Hirtle, & A. U. Frank (Eds.), Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 297–311). Berlin: Springer.
Noordzij, M. L., & Postma, A. (2005). Categorical and metric distance information in mental representations derived from route and survey descriptions. Psychological Research, 69, 221–232
Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., & Epstein, W. (2003). The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science, 14(2), 106–112.
Siegel & White (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. 10 (pp. 9–55). New York: Academic.
Taylor, H. A., Naylor, S. J., & Chechile, N. A. (1999). Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspective. Memory & Cognition, 27, 309–319.
Wilkniss, S. M., Jones, M. G., Karol, D. L., Gold, P. E., & Manning, C. A. (1997). Age-related differences in an ecologically based study of route learning. Psychology and Aging, 12, 372–375.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Fundamental Research (NWO, No. 440-20-000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Asselen, M., Fritschy, E. & Postma, A. The influence of intentional and incidental learning on acquiring spatial knowledge during navigation. Psychological Research 70, 151–156 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0199-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0199-0