Jessie Bullens The role of landmarks in the development of object location memory

- Introduction - Egocentric ‘snapshot’ Local landmark cues Distal landmark cues: allocentric representation Egocentric spatial updating Object Location Memory & Orientation

Nardini et al., Introduction -

- Study 1 - Room cues + - Table cues +-+- Same view Room cues + - Table cues +-+- Diff. view

- Results Study 1- Radial error: age effect, children 5 years of age differed from 7 and 10-year-olds Angular error: no age effect > table cues available > room cues available when viewpoint changed

Leplow et al., Introduction - Kiel Locomotor Maze

- Study 2 -

- Results Study 2 -

- Introduction - Morris Water Maze (Morris, 1991) Location Visibility platform Hamilton et al., 2008

- Study L 2 L 1 2 L 1 2 Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Doeller et al., 2008 Bullens et al., submitted

- Results Study 3 - children 5 and 7 years of age performed less accurate than adults, but parallel processing of landmark and boundary children: distance > angle adults: angle > distance adults performed better on the boundary-related object, difference between VR and real life?

- Conclusion - Children 5 years: do spontaneously use local cues when cues are placed in conflict, but are able to (learn to) process local and distal cues in parallel Children 7 years: ‘transitional phase’ Children 10 years: do spontaneously use distal cues for (re)orientation

Questions?