Individual Differences in Cognitive Flexibility and Cognitive Map Accuracy

Research has demonstrated broad individual differences in the ability to form a cognitive map of a novel environment. The current study investigated whether individual differences in cognitive map accuracy are driven by differences in cognitive flexibility specifically, the ability to switch between tasks. Using the Silcton virtual environment, participants explored four routes in Silcton and were assessed on cognitive map accuracy using the Silcton onsite pointing task and the Silcton model building task. To assess task-switching, perseveration error from the Wisconsin Card Sort Test (WCST) was measured. There was a significant correlation between the WCST and the onsite pointing task, such that low perseveration error lead to better cognitive map accuracy. Therefore, the current study is the first to reveal an association between cognitive flexibility in the form of task-switching and individual differences in cognitive map accuracy. COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND COGNITIVE MAP ACCURACY 3 Individual Differences in Cognitive Flexibility and Cognitive Map Accuracy Spatial navigation is an essential ability used for finding one’s way through complex environments, for planning routes to far destinations and for returning back to original locations (Wolbers & Hegarty, 2010). Spatial navigation can be described as a multifaceted process based on external spatial representations such as diagrams or maps and internal spatial representations that include the ability to perceive spatial information from multisensory cues, create spatial representations that are encoded in short-term and long-term memory and then using these representations to guide navigational behaviour (Wolbers & Hegarty, 2010). As well, Wolbers and Hegarty (2010) suggest that this internal mental representation, can be thought of as creating a “cognitive map” which can be further described as the ability to mentally visualize a “bird’s eye view” representation of an environment. The term “cognitive map” was coined by Tolman (1948), when he discovered that rats had the ability to successfully use novel routes to obtain food rewards. From this discovery, he theorized that in order for the rats to use these novel routes to retrieve treats, they must be capable of mentally visualizing all possible routes that could lead to their goal destination. As research has shown that humans are able to navigate using unfamiliar routes, it was suggested that humans must also possess the ability to form a cognitive map (Bennett, 1996; Montello, 1998). Therefore, research has investigated individual differences in the ability to form a cognitive map, demonstrating that some individuals possess the ability to create a cognitive map while others do not (Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016). Early research in the formation of cognitive maps suggested that learning a novel environment involved the acquisition of three types of knowledge occurring in a series of steps (Siegal & White, 1975). The first step involved acquiring landmark knowledge, which consists COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND COGNITIVE MAP ACCURACY 4 of distinct objects that are stored in memory to be recognized later. The second step is acquiring route knowledge, which consists of a series of landmarks that are connected to one another by paths or routes. The final step is acquiring survey knowledge, which integrates the separate routes and landmarks into one representation of the environment. Siegel and White (1975) additionally stated that acquiring survey knowledge assisted in the formation of a cognitive map of the environment. However, Montello (1998) argued that cognitive maps are acquired continuously rather than serially, as both landmark and route knowledge can be understood upon first exposure to a novel environment. Montello found that individuals who have had equivalent levels of exposure to an environment, can possess individual differences in the extent and accuracy of their spatial knowledge, as a result of differences in the degree of knowledge integration. Therefore, he suggested that there may be individual differences in the ability to integrate routes from the novel environment into a cognitive map. As a test of Montello’s theory, Ishiwaka and Montello (2006) investigated the ability to integrate two separately traveled routes into one mental representation in college students. In the study, students were driven along two routes through a neighbourhood that was previously unfamiliar to them and were directed to remember distinct landmarks within the routes over the course of 10 weeks. After the fourth week, participants were then driven through a short connecting route. Following each session, participants were asked to estimate the distance between the landmarks as well as draw a map of the area. Ishiwaka and Montello discovered that while some participant’s knowledge of the routes had significantly improved over the course of 10 weeks, others did not change over time or did not improve at all. Therefore, concluding that there are individual differences in the accuracy and development of integrating routes into one representation. COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND COGNITIVE MAP ACCURACY 5 Weisberg, Schinazi, Newcombe, Shipley and Epstein (2013) further demonstrated individual differences in the integration of separate routes into a cognitive map using a virtual environment software known as Silcton, that was created to resemble the task developed by Ishiwaka and Montello (2006). As such, Silcton uses a real-world setting to allow individuals to virtually travel along two separate routes while learning the names of target buildings on each route and then travel along two connecting routes, in an effort to integrate the information learned into one mental representation. In the study, participants were shown the virtual world and were instructed to navigate through two separate routes, as they attempted to learn the names and locations of eight target buildings that were located throughout the two separate routes. Once participants learned the building’s name and locations, they were directed to another set of two separate routes that connected with the two previously learned routes. To test the ability of integrating separate routes into one single map, participants were instructed to estimate the direction of each learned building based on the current building they were standing in front of. In this task, target buildings were either within the same route or between routes of the building a participant was standing in front of, to measure within and between route knowledge. In addition, participants were instructed to construct a map of the virtual environment from a bird’s eye view perspective as a direct measure of cognitive map accuracy. Results from the study provided further evidence to support individual differences in cognitive map accuracy, as some participants demonstrated an accurate ability to estimate landmark direction and create a map of the environment while others were less accurate. Weisberg et al. (2013), used the results from the direction estimation task for within the routes and between the routes in Silcton to separate participants into three different groups. These groups included integrators, representing individuals who performed well on judgements COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND COGNITIVE MAP ACCURACY 6 for within-routes and between-routes, non-integrators, representing individuals who performed well on within-route judgements but not between-route judgements and imprecise navigators, representing individuals who lacked the ability to understand both within and between route knowledge. Weisberg and Newcombe (2016), suggested that the individual differences between the three groups could be the result of differences in verbal and spatial working memory. To test this theory, participants were categorized as either integrators, non-integrators or imprecise navigators. Each group was then instructed to travel through the Silcton virtual environment completing the same tasks as before. Results from the study revealed that imprecise navigators had lower levels of spatial and verbal memory compared to non-integrators and integrators. It was theorized that the decrease in spatial and verbal working memory could result in a decrease in the ability to create an accurate within-route mental representation. Using this, Weisberg and Newcombe hypothesized that in order to understand within route knowledge, an individual must possess knowledge regarding the landmarks as well as the spatial surroundings and to understand between route knowledge, an individual must possess survey knowledge. Further, it was suggested that for an individual to form a cognitive map, they must be able to integrate the knowledge learned within the routes and connect this to the knowledge learned between the routes, to form a mental representation of the area as a whole. The results of Weisberg and Newcombe (2016) supported Siegal and White (1975), suggesting that individuals learn novel environments serially, as the study found that landmark and route knowledge is necessary for understanding within-route knowledge and that survey knowledge is necessary for understanding between-route knowledge. However, as Weisberg and Newcombe (2016) found that imprecise navigators scored lower on tasks involved in spatial and verbal working memory compared to non-integrators and integrators, they suggested that COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY AND COGNITIVE MAP ACCURACY 7 imprecise navigators may be unable to effectively learn the buildings’ names, meaning that they never acquired within-route knowledge, which is necessary for creating a cognitive map. Since integrators and non-integrators showed no significant difference on scores for spatial and verbal working memory, between-route knowledge may relate less to understanding within-route knowledge and rather, relate more to the integration of the within and between route knowledge. Therefore, the ability