Similarities and differences in spatial and nonspatial cognitive maps

被引:0
|
作者
Wu C.M. [1 ,2 ]
Schulz E. [3 ]
Garvert M.M. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Meder B. [2 ,7 ,8 ]
Schuck N.W. [5 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
[2] Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
[3] Max Planck Research Group Computational Principles of Intelligence, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen
[4] Department of Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig
[5] Max Planck Research Group NeuroCode, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
[6] Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford
[7] Max Planck Research Group iSearch, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
[8] Department of Psychology, University of Erfurt, Erfurt
[9] Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, Berlin
来源
PLoS Computational Biology | 2020年 / 16卷 / 09期
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”;
关键词
D O I
10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1008149
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Learning and generalization in spatial domains is often thought to rely on a “cognitive map”, representing relationships between spatial locations. Recent research suggests that this same neural machinery is also recruited for reasoning about more abstract, conceptual forms of knowledge. Yet, to what extent do spatial and conceptual reasoning share common computational principles, and what are the implications for behavior? Using a within-subject design we studied how participants used spatial or conceptual distances to generalize and search for correlated rewards in successive multi-armed bandit tasks. Participant behavior indicated sensitivity to both spatial and conceptual distance, and was best captured using a Bayesian model of generalization that formalized distance-dependent generalization and uncertainty-guided exploration as a Gaussian Process regression with a radial basis function kernel. The same Gaussian Process model best captured human search decisions and judgments in both domains, and could simulate realistic learning curves, where we found equivalent levels of generalization in spatial and conceptual tasks. At the same time, we also find characteristic differences between domains. Relative to the spatial domain, participants showed reduced levels of uncertainty-directed exploration and increased levels of random exploration in the conceptual domain. Participants also displayed a one-directional transfer effect, where experience in the spatial task boosted performance in the conceptual task, but not vice versa. While confidence judgments indicated that participants were sensitive to the uncertainty of their knowledge in both tasks, they did not or could not leverage their estimates of uncertainty to guide exploration in the conceptual task. These results support the notion that value-guided learning and generalization recruit cognitive-map dependent computational mechanisms in spatial and conceptual domains. Yet both behavioral and model-based analyses suggest domain specific differences in how these representations map onto actions. Copyright: © 2020 Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Spatial scaling in congenitally blind and sighted individuals: similarities and differences
    Szubielska, Magdalena
    Mohring, Wenke
    Szewczyk, Marta
    JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 31 (04) : 476 - 486
  • [42] Differences between auditory evoked responses recorded during spatial and nonspatial working memory tasks
    Anurova, I
    Artchakov, D
    Korvenoja, A
    Ilmoniemi, RJ
    Aronen, HJ
    Carlson, S
    NEUROIMAGE, 2003, 20 (02) : 1181 - 1192
  • [43] Event-related Electroencephalographic Lateralizations Mark Individual Differences in Spatial and Nonspatial Visual Selection
    Wiegand, Iris
    Napiorkowski, Natan
    Toellner, Thomas
    Petersen, Anders
    Habekost, Thomas
    Mueller, Hermann J.
    Finke, Kathrin
    JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2018, 30 (04) : 482 - 497
  • [44] Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes
    Surtees, Andrew
    Apperly, Ian
    Samson, Dana
    COGNITION, 2013, 129 (02) : 426 - 438
  • [45] Variations in Cognitive Maps: Understanding Individual Differences in Navigation
    Weisberg, Steven M.
    Schinazi, Victor R.
    Newcombe, Nora S.
    Shipley, Thomas F.
    Epstein, Russell A.
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2014, 40 (03) : 669 - 682
  • [46] Detecting and measuring crucial differences between cognitive maps
    Septer, Timo J.
    Dijkstra, Jacob
    Stokman, Frans N.
    RATIONALITY AND SOCIETY, 2012, 24 (04) : 383 - 407
  • [47] Different Brains Process Numbers Differently: Structural Bases of Individual Differences in Spatial and Nonspatial Number Representations
    Krause, Florian
    Lindemann, Oliver
    Toni, Ivan
    Bekkering, Harold
    JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2014, 26 (04) : 768 - 776
  • [48] DIFFERENCES IN SPATIAL KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED FROM MAPS AND NAVIGATION
    THORNDYKE, PW
    HAYESROTH, B
    COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 1982, 14 (04) : 560 - 589
  • [50] Spatial and nonspatial memory involvement in myasthenia gravis
    Bohbot, VD
    Jech, R
    Bures, J
    Nadel, L
    Ruzicka, E
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 1997, 244 (08) : 529 - 532