Crowe D A, Averbeck B B, Chafee M V, Anderson J H, Georgopoulos A P
Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55417, USA.
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Sep;12(5):813-27. doi: 10.1162/089892900562426.
We sought to determine how a visual maze is mentally solved. Human subjects (N = 13) viewed mazes with orthogonal, unbranched paths; each subject solved 200-600 mazes in any specific experiment below. There were four to six openings at the perimeter of the maze, of which four were labeled: one was the entry point and the remainder were potential exits marked by Arabic numerals. Starting at the entry point, in some mazes the path exited, whereas in others it terminated within the maze. Subjects were required to type the number corresponding to the true exit (if the path exited) or type zero (if the path did not exit). In all cases, the only required hand movement was a key press, and thus the hand never physically traveled through the maze. Response times (RT) were recorded and analyzed using a multiple linear regression model. RT increased as a function of key parameters of the maze, namely the length of the main path, the number of turns in the path, the direct distance from entry to termination, and the presence of an exit. The dependence of RT on the number of turns was present even when the path length was fixed in a separate experiment (N = 10 subjects). In a different experiment, subjects solved large and small mazes (N = 3 subjects). The former was the same as the latter but was scaled up by 1.77 times. Thus both kinds of mazes contained the same number of squares but each square subtended 1.77 degrees of visual angle (DVA) in the large maze, as compared to 1 DVA in the small one. We found that the average RT was practically the same in both cases. A multiple regression analysis revealed that the processing coefficients related to maze distance (i.e., path length and direct distance) were reduced by approximately one-half when solving large mazes, as compared to solving small mazes. This means that the efficiency in processing distance-related information almost doubled for scaled-up mazes. In contrast, the processing coefficients for number of turns and exit status were practically the same in the two cases. Finally, the eye movements of three subjects were recorded during maze solution. They consisted of sequences of saccades and fixations. The number of fixations in a trial increased as a linear function of the path length and number of turns. With respect to the fixations themselves, eyes tended to fixate on the main path and to follow it along its course, such that fixations occurring later in time were positioned at progressively longer distances from the entry point. Furthermore, the time the eyes spent at each fixation point increased as a linear function of the length and number of turns in the path segment between the current and the upcoming fixation points. These findings suggest that the maze segment from the current fixation spot to the next is being processed during the fixation time (FT), and that a significant aspect of this processing relates to the length and turns in that segment. We interpreted these relations to mean that the maze was mentally traversed. We then estimated the distance and endpoint of the path mentally traversed within a specific FT; we also hypothesized that the next portion of the main path would be traversed during the ensuing FT, and so on for the whole path. A prediction of this hypothesis is that the upcoming saccade would land the eyes at or near the locus on the path where the mental traversing ended, so that "the eyes would pick up where the mental traversal left off." In this way, a portion of the path would be traversed during a fixation and successive such portions would be strung together closely along the main path to complete the processing of the whole path. We tested this prediction by analyzing the relations between the path distance of mental traverse and the distance along the path between the current and the next fixation spot. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
我们试图确定视觉迷宫在大脑中是如何被解决的。人类受试者(N = 13)观看具有正交、无分支路径的迷宫;在以下任何特定实验中,每个受试者要解决200 - 600个迷宫。迷宫周边有四到六个开口,其中四个有标记:一个是入口点,其余的是用阿拉伯数字标记的潜在出口。从入口点开始,在一些迷宫中路径通向出口,而在另一些迷宫中路径在迷宫内部终止。受试者被要求输入对应真正出口的数字(如果路径通向出口)或输入零(如果路径不通向出口)。在所有情况下,唯一需要的手部动作是按键,因此手从未实际穿过迷宫。记录反应时间(RT)并使用多元线性回归模型进行分析。RT随着迷宫的关键参数而增加,即主路径的长度、路径中的转弯次数、从入口到终点的直线距离以及是否有出口。即使在单独的实验中固定了路径长度(N = 10名受试者),RT对转弯次数的依赖性依然存在。在另一个实验中,受试者解决大迷宫和小迷宫(N = 3名受试者)。前者与后者相同,但尺寸放大了1.77倍。因此,两种迷宫包含相同数量的方块,但在大迷宫中每个方块所对视角为1.77度视角(DVA),而在小迷宫中为1 DVA。我们发现两种情况下的平均RT实际上是相同的。多元回归分析表明,与迷宫距离相关的处理系数(即路径长度和直线距离)在解决大迷宫时比解决小迷宫时大约降低了一半。这意味着对于放大后的迷宫,处理与距离相关信息的效率几乎提高了一倍。相比之下,两种情况下转弯次数和出口状态的处理系数实际上是相同的。最后,在受试者解决迷宫过程中记录了三名受试者的眼动。眼动由一系列扫视和注视组成。一次试验中的注视次数随着路径长度和转弯次数呈线性增加。就注视本身而言,眼睛倾向于注视主路径并沿着其方向移动,使得较晚出现的注视点与入口点的距离逐渐增加。此外,眼睛在每个注视点停留的时间随着当前注视点与即将到来的注视点之间路径段的长度和转弯次数呈线性增加。这些发现表明,在注视时间(FT)内正在处理从当前注视点到下一个注视点的迷宫片段,并且这种处理的一个重要方面与该片段的长度和转弯有关。我们将这些关系解释为意味着迷宫在大脑中被遍历。然后我们估计在特定FT内大脑遍历的路径的距离和终点;我们还假设在随后的FT内将遍历主路径的下一部分,整个路径以此类推。这个假设的一个预测是即将到来的扫视将使眼睛落在大脑遍历结束的路径位置或其附近,以便“眼睛将从大脑遍历停止的地方继续”。通过这种方式,在一次注视期间将遍历路径的一部分,并且沿着主路径将连续的此类部分紧密串在一起以完成对整个路径的处理。我们通过分析大脑遍历的路径距离与当前注视点和下一个注视点之间路径上的距离之间的关系来测试这个预测。(摘要截断)