No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 October 2013
The bicoded cognitive maps described by Jeffery et al. are compared to metric perceptual representations. Systematic biases in perceptual experience of egocentric distance, height, and surface orientation may reflect information processing choices to retain information critical for immediate action (Durgin et al. 2010a). Different information processing goals (route planning vs. immediate action) require different metric information.
Target article
Navigating in a three-dimensional world
Related commentaries (32)
Anisotropy and polarization of space: Evidence from naïve optics and phenomenological psychophysics
Applying the bicoded spatial model to nonhuman primates in an arboreal multilayer environment
Are all types of vertical information created equal?
Augmented topological maps for three-dimensional navigation
Development of human spatial cognition in a three-dimensional world
Does evidence from ethology support bicoded cognitive maps?
Foreshortening affects both uphill and downhill slope perception at far distances
Grid maps for spaceflight, anyone? They are for free!
Has a fully three-dimensional space map never evolved in any species? A comparative imperative for studies of spatial cognition
Human path navigation in a three-dimensional world
Just the tip of the iceberg: The bicoded map is but one instantiation of scalable spatial representation structures
Learning landmarks and routes in multi-floored buildings
Learning to navigate in a three-dimensional world: From bees to primates
Making a stronger case for comparative research to investigate the behavioral and neurological bases of three-dimensional navigation
Map fragmentation in two- and three-dimensional environments
Monkeys in space: Primate neural data suggest volumetric representations
Multi-floor buildings and human wayfinding cognition
Navigating in a volumetric world: Metric encoding in the vertical axis of space
Navigating through a volumetric world does not imply needing a full three-dimensional representation
Navigation bicoded as functions of x-y and time?
Perceptual experience as a bridge between the retina and a bicoded cognitive map
Semantic sides of three-dimensional space representation
Spatial language as a window on representations of three-dimensional space
The complex interplay between three-dimensional egocentric and allocentric spatial representation
The planar mosaic fails to account for spatially directed action
The problem of conflicting reference frames when investigating three-dimensional space in surface-dwelling animals
The study of blindness and technology can reveal the mechanisms of three-dimensional navigation
Think local, act global: How do fragmented representations of space allow seamless navigation?
Vertical and veridical – 2.5-dimensional visual and vestibular navigation
What counts as the evidence for three-dimensional and four-dimensional spatial representations?
What is optimized in an optimal path?
Which animal model for understanding human navigation in a three-dimensional world?
Author response
A framework for three-dimensional navigation research