Using vision for navigation is important for many animals and a common debate is the extent to which spatial performance can be explained by “simple” view-based matching strategies. We discuss, in the context of recent work, how confusion between image-matching algorithms and the broader class of view-based navigation strategies, is hindering the debate around the use of vision in spatial cognition. A proper consideration of view-based matching strategies requires an understanding of the visual information available to a given animal within a particular experiment.
BiedermanI.GerhardsteinP. C. (1995). Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1506–1514. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.21.6.1506.
2.
ChengK. (1986). A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation. Cognition, 23, 149–178. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(86)90041-7.
3.
ChengK. (2008). Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 355–361. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.06.004.
4.
CheungA.StürzlW.ZeilJ.ChengK. (2008). Information content of panoramic images: II. View-based navigation in nonrectangular experimental arenas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 15–30. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.15.
5.
ClarkA. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
DittmarL.StürzlW.BairdE.BoeddekerN.EgelhaafM. (2010). Goal seeking in honeybees: matching of optic flow snapshots?Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 2913–2923. doi:10.1242/jeb.043737.
7.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
LeeS. A.SpelkeE. S. (2011). Young children reorient by computing layout geometry, not by matching images of the environment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 192–198. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0035-z.
9.
LeeS. A.SpelkeE. S.VallortigaraG. (2012). Chicks, like children, spontaneously reorient by three-dimensional environmental geometry, not by image matching. Biology Letters, 8, 492–494. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0067.
10.
PecchiaTGagliardoA.VallortigaraG. (2011). Stable panoramic views facilitate snap-shot like memories for spatial reorientation in homing pigeons. PLoS ONE, 6, e22657. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022657.
11.
PecchiaTVallortigaraG. (2010). View-based strategy for reorientation by geometry. Journal of Experimental Biology, 213, 2987–2996. doi:10.1242/jeb.043315.
12.
PickupL. C.FitzgibbonA. W.GilsonS. J.GlennersterA. (2011). View-based modelling of human visual navigation errors. Proceedings of the IVMSP Workshop IEEE, 10, 135–140. doi:10.1109/IVMSPW.2011.5970368.
13.
StürzlW.CheungA.ChengK.ZeilJ. (2008). Information content of panoramic images: I. Rotational errors and the similarity of views in rectangular arenas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 1–14. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.1.
14.
TarrM. J.BülthoffH. H. (1998). Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition, 67, 1–20. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00026-2.
15.
Von UexküllJ. (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. In SchillerC. H. (Ed.), Instinctive behavior: The development of a modern concept. New York: International Universities Press.
16.
WystrachA.ChengK.SosaS.BeugnonG. (2011). Geometry, features, and panoramic views: Ants in rectangular arenas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 37, 420–435. doi:10.1037/a0023886.
17.
WystrachA.GrahamP. (2012). What can we learn from studies of insect navigation?Animal Behaviour, 84, 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.04.017.
18.
ZeilJ.HofmannM. I.ChahlJ. S. (2003). Catchment areas of panoramic snapshots in outdoor scenes. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 20, 450–469. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.20.000450.
