Consolidation of cognitive maps as a gradual process

Consolidation of cognitive maps as a gradual process | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Consolidation of cognitive maps as a gradual process Otmar Bock This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Cognitive maps of the environment are initially encoded in a fragile form susceptible to interference, but they can stabilized over time – a process called “consolidation”. This study investigated whether consolidation is a gradual or an all-or-none process. In the main condition, participants formed first a map of environment A, then a map of environment B, and then returned to A (sequence: A 1 ->B ->A 2 ). Performance increased from A 1 to A 2 , but this increase was smaller than in a control condition where B was replaced by a pause filled with unrelated activities (sequence: A 1 ->pause ->A 2 ). Performance remained comparable to the main condition when a pause was added after A 1 (sequence: A 1 ->pause ->B ->A 2 ), but improved and became comparable to the control condition when a replica of A 1 was added (sequence: A 1 ->A R ->B ->A 2 ). This pattern of findings suggests that (1) cognitive maps consolidate gradually rather than abruptly, and (2) consolidation proceeds during practice but not during pauses filled with other activities. spatial cognition navigation consolidation interference Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Wayfinding through buildings, cities and landscapes often relies on internal representations of the environment, called “cognitive maps” (Tolman, 1948 ). Such maps allow us to reach a variety of destinations from different starting points and along different routes - for instance, taking the shortest or the most scenic route, or finding a detour around roadblocks. This flexibility is not offered by alternative wayfinding strategies that are limited to a fixed route or a single destination (Tlauka and Wilson, 1994 ; Waller and Lippa, 2007 ). Cognitive maps are not exact models of the real world: they can be fragmented, distorted, influenced by assumptions, poor in detail, and sometimes even non-metric (Chrastil and Warren, 2013 ; Peer et al., 2024 ). They can be anchored in different reference frames, such as a person’s body (head, trunk or limbs), environmental boundaries, or cardinal directions (Galati et al., 2010 ; Meilinger et al., 2015 ; Richardson et al., 1999 ), two-or three-dimensional depending on task demand (Bock, 2025b ; Jeffery et al., 2013 ; Lu and Ye, 2019 ), and their fidelity does not depend o the number of encoded locations, suggesting that environments can be represented holistically (Bock, 2025a ). It is well established by behavioral and neurophysiological data from humans and rodents that spatial memory resides in the hippocampus (O’Keefe and Nadel, 1978 ). There it is initially encoded in a fragile form susceptible to interference from new incoming information. Over time, however, it is stabilized by increasing the efficiency of participating synapses – a phenomenon referred to as “cellular consolidation”. This type of consolidation is distinct from “systems consolidation”, which involves the transfer of memory content from hippocampal to neocortical circuits and its storage in a less detailed, more generalized form (Nadel and Moscovitch, 1997 ). Evidence for cellular consolidation of spatial memory comes from studies showing that memory for learned locations is degraded when a second spatial task is administered within minutes after the first, but remains intact when the second task is introduced after a delay of four hours or more (Darling et al., 2007 ; Eggert et al., 2014 ; Tresch et al., 1993 ; Zimmer et al., 2003 ). The above studies on cellular consolidation of spatial memory administered two blocks of spatial task A and a block of spatial task B in the order A 1 ->B ->A 2 , and compared performance during A 2 to that in a control condition in which B was replaced by a pause of either attentive rest, a scheduled non-spatial task, or everyday activities. A 2 performance in the main condition was poorer than in the control condition when the delay between blocks was short, but not when it was long. This finding was appropriately interpreted as evidence for delay-dependent interference, a hallmark of cellular consolidation. However, it remained unclear whether brief delays completely abolished consolidation, or merely attenuated it. This distinction is critical, as it relates to two competing views on the function of interfering tasks. According to one view, pre-existing memory traces are overwritten by new ones (Nairne, 1990 ), whereas according to the other, pre-existing and new memory traces compete with each other (Bancroft et al., 2016 ). The former view aligns with abolished consolidation, and the latter fits well with attenuated consolidation. To find out whether consolidation of spatial memory is abolished or attenuated by another spatial task, the present study replicated the above experimental designs but evaluated performance not only during A 2 , but also during A 1 . This allowed the examination of following predictions: If consolidation is abolished by B, then A 2 should not benefit from the spatial knowledge acquired during A 1 . Therefore in the main condition, A 2 performance should be similar to A 1 performance. If consolidation is attenuated but not abolished by B, then in then main condition, A 2 performance should exceed A 1 performance, but this improvement (A 2 - A 1 ) should be smaller than in the baseline condition. If consolidation is not affected by B at all, then in the main condition, A 2 performance should again exceed A 1 performance, and the improvement (A 2 - A 1 ) should be similar to the baseline condition. In sum, abolished, attenuated and full consolidation can be distinguished by two comparisons: A 2 versus A 1 within the main condition, and the improvement (A 2 - A 1 ) in the main versus the baseline condition. Spatial task A and B each required participants to memorize twelve locations encountered in a virtual maze on six learning trips. According to earlier research by the author’s group (e.g., Bock et al., 2024 ), such a task takes about ten minutes and is neither too easy nor overwhelmingly difficult. The working hypothesis was that with these tasks, consolidation of A 1 will be attenuated but not abolished if B is administered immediately after A 1 . According to a supplementary hypothesis, consolidation of A 1 will continue if it is given more time before B is administered. The latter hypothesis was examined by introducing, before block B, either a ten-minute pause filled with everyday activities, or a ten-minute repetition block of task A (block A R ). Thus, supplementary condition 1 had the block sequence A 1 ->pause ->B ->A 2 , and supplementary condition 2 had the block sequence A 1 ->A R ->B ->A 2 . The former condition addresses additional “offline” consolidation while attention is directed elsewhere, whereas the latter examines additional “online” consolidation through continued engagement with the target task. If both hypotheses are confirmed experimentally, i.e., if consolidation is incomplete in the main condition but gains additional strength in the supplementary conditions, this would suggest that consolidation is a gradual process, evolving over time, not an all-or-none phenomenon as implied by the “overwriting” metaphor. Methods Participants One hundred and twelve persons were recruited via the internet platform Prolific, with the inclusion criteria of age range 20 to 40 and fluency in English (since instructions were presented in English). Among them, 38 were assigned to the main condition (mean age 30.2 ± 9.2 years, 13 females), 38 to the control condition (mean age 29.4 ± 7.9 years, 14 females), 18 to supplementary condition 1 (37.1 ± 11.1 years of age, 9 females) and 18 to supplementary condition 2 (39.0 ± 15.6 years of age, 7 females). The study was part of a larger research program pre-approved by the author’s institutional Ethics Commission (Approval No. 062/2020). Informed consent was obtained from each participant before testing. Cognitive mapping task The task was administered remotely on the participants’ desktop computers via the online platform Gorilla. To ensure consistency with earlier work of the author’s group, cognitive mapping was assessed using virtual grid mazes with a plain and uniform interior design. A unique geometric shape was placed at each of twelve adjacent intersections forming a grid of three intersections forward and four sideways (see Fig. 1 b). During learning trips , participants had to memorize the locations of these shapes; during interleaved tests , they had to indicate the location of each shape on a schematic drawing of the maze. Abstract geometric shapes, rather than realistic objects, were used to minimize encoding by narratives (e.g., “the bulldozer drove through the tent to hit the tower”). During each learning trip , participants viewed a virtual tour through the maze from a first-person perspective (as in Fug. 1 a). They travelled from one intersection to the next within 2 seconds, and then stopped for 2.5 seconds while the geometric shape located at that intersection was displayed straight ahead. The trips included no left or right turns. For example, instead of a right turn followed by another right turn, participants saw a sideway shift (as if looking through the side window of a moving vehicle) followed by a backward shift (as if looking through the vehicle’s rear window). In this way, participants’ egocentric straight-ahead was aligned with the mazes’ allocentric North throughout the trip. Such an alignment facilitates spatial orientation in a virtual grid maze (Bock, 2025b ), likely by avoiding the cognitive demand associated with rotational transformations between egocentric and allocentric reference frames. Each test displayed a schematic drawing of the maze (see Fig. 1 b, but without red arrows), together with one of the previously encountered geometric shapes. Participants indicated the shape’s location by clicking on the corresponding intersection with the mouse. When the response was correct, the next shape appeared immediately. When the response was incorrect or not given within 12 seconds, an error message was displayed for 3 seconds before the next shape appeared, etc., until all twelve shapes had been responded to. This testing procedure was chosen over an alternative in which participants re-visit the shapes in first-person perspective, since it avoids the response bias arising from inaccurate self-orientation during such re-visits (Bock, 2025a ). Procedures Participants were informed that they would proceed through virtual mazes and subsequently report the locations of geometric shapes encountered along the way. For familiarization, they first completed a short learning trip forward across three intersections, followed by a test. Unlike in the main experiment, this test required each incorrect response to be repeated until a correct response was given. Familiarization then continued with a second learning trip, this time rightward across three intersections, and a second test. Thus, by the end of familiarization, each participant had given six correct responses. The actual experiment began with block A 1 , the first block of trials in which participants acquired cognitive map A. In this block, learning trips (L) and tests (T) alternated according to the sequence L-L-T-L-T-L-T-L-T-L-T. Each learning trip took a different route through the maze, so that participants encountered the same shapes at the same intersections - but in a different serial order. Similarly, the serial order of shapes differed between tests, and differed from all orders on the learning trips. This variation of serial order was implemented to prevent reliance on serial order as a mnemonic cue. At the onset of each learning trip, participants were shown a schematic drawing of the maze, but with arrows indicating the upcoming route (see example in Fig. 1 b), to facilitate self-orientation during the trip. At the same time, they were reminded of their task to memorize shape locations rather shape serial order. Depending on the condition to which participants were assigned, block A 1 was followed by block B, in which participants acquired a different cognitive map, a pause, in which participants engaged in everyday activities (compliance with this instruction was confirmed during debriefing), or block A R , which was a replica of block A 1 . The experiment ended for all conditions with block A 2 , another replica of A 1 . The order of blocks was A 1 ->B ->A 2 in the main condition, A 1 ->pause ->A 2 in the control condition, A 1 ->pause ->B ->A 2 in supplementary condition 1, and A 1 ->A R ->B ->A 2 in supplementary condition 2. The duration of each block was about 10 minutes. Intervals between blocks were a few seconds, depending on the time participants needed to read the instruction screen. The virtual mazes used in blocks A and B differed only in that the color and location of shapes was not the same. For instance, one maze displayed a red triangle at the front-far-left intersection, whereas the other displayed a purple triangle at the rear-near-left intersection. The assignment of mazes to blocks A and B was balanced across participants from each condition. Data analysis Performance was quantified as response accuracy, defined as the proportion of correct responses on each test. Since this metric was bounded by 0 and 1 and therefore was not normally distributed, statistical analysis took a logistic approach, based on a generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial error distribution and logit link function. The model included the fixed effects Condition, Block (A 1 , A 2 ), Test (1 to 5), all their interactions, and Sex (f, m). A random intercept for participant ID accounted for repeated measures. The model was fitted using the R function glmer from the lme4 package, using the bobyqa optimizer to ensure convergence. The primary hypothesis, stipulating that A 1 consolidation is attenuated in the main condition, was examined using the two planned comparisons described in the Introduction section. The levels of fixed effect Condition were set to (main, control), and the model outcome was analyzed with the R functions emmeans and contrast from the emmeans package to compute two planned contrasts. One contrast compared A 2 versus A 1 within the main condition, and the second compared the performance improvement (A 2 - A 1 ) in the main versus in the control condition. Statistical significance was assessed on the model’s logit scale without correcting for multiple-comparisons, consistent with the a priori specification of these contrasts. Effect sizes were computed following Chinn (2000), by multiplying each logit coefficient by √3/π to obtain a metric comparable to Cohen’s d under logistic regression. Benchmarks for small, medium, and large effects are d = 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively (Cohen, 1988 ). Supplementary hypothesis 1, predicting that consolidation will increase if A 1 is followed by a pause, was evaluated analogously except that two models were fitted. Condition had the levels (supplementary 1, control) in one model, and had the levels (supplementary 1, main) in the other. Supplementary hypothesis 2, maintaining that consolidation will increase if A 1 is followed by additional task practice, was examined accordingly: Condition had the levels (supplementary 2, control) in one model, and (supplementary 2, main) in the other. Required sample size n r was estimated with G*Power (Faul et al., 2007 ), using f = 0.25, r = 0.5, a = 0.05 and ß = 0.95, yielding n r = 54 both for a within-group comparison of two repeated measures (contrast 1) and for a within-between comparison of two groups x two repeated measures (contrast 2). Hence the actual sample sizes, n = 76 for the first hypothesis and n = 56 for each supplementary hypothesis, were larger than n r . Results Figure 2 . Accuracy in the experimental and control group during tests in Block A 1 (left) and A 2 ( right ). Each dot represents the accuracy of one person in one test; the dots are jittered horizontally and vertically to reduce overlap. By definition, accuracy is bounded by 0 and 1. Tukey style box plots are overlaid to visualize data distributions. Table 1 exemplifies the overall pattern in the generalized linear mixed-effects model by the results of Type III likelihood-ratio tests and the corresponding effect sizes when Condition was set to (main, baseline). Significant and substantial effects emerged for Block, Test, and all interactions, a pattern that is difficult to interpret. The present analysis therefore focused on the hypothesis-driven planned comparisons described in the Introduction and Methods sections. Table 1 Results of Type-III likelihood-ratio tests and the corresponding effect sizes a . Effect χ² df p R² Sex 0.049 1 0.824 < 0.001 Condition 2.298 1 0.130 0.003 Block 343.199 1 < 0.001 0.410 Test 366.235 4 < 0.001 0.383 Condition x Block 48.262 1 < 0.001 0.058 Condition x Test 11.240 4 0.024 0.013 Block x Test 42.808 4 < 0.001 0.051 Condition x Block x Test 12.882 4 0.012 0.015 a Tests were computed in the R function Anova from the car package, Effect sizes R 2 were computed as χ²_effect / Σχ²_total), as originally proposed by Nagelkerke (1991) for generalized linear models. Benchmarks for small, medium and large effects are R 2 = 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14, respectively (Cohen, 1988 ). Significant effects are highlighted in bold. When Condition levels were set to (main, control), the contrast comparing A 2 versus A 1 within the main condition was significant (z = 6.947, p < 0.001, d = 0.398). Likewise, the contrast comparing the improvement (A 2 - A 1 ) in the main versus in the control condition was significant (z = 8.622, p < 0.001, d = 0.390). Hence performance in the main condition improved from A 1 to A 2 , but this improvement was smaller than in the control condition. With Condition levels set to (supplementary 1, control), the within-condition contrast was again significant (z = 8.293, p < 0.001, d = 0.497), as was the between-condition contrast (z = 4.751, p < 0.001, d = 0.372). However, when Condition levels were set to (supplementary 1, main), the between-condition contrast was not significant (z = 1.430, p = 0.153, d = 0.108). Thus, improvement from A 1 to A 2 in supplementary condition 1 was comparable to that in the main condition. With Condition levels set to (supplementary 2, control), the within-condition contrast was significant (z = 14.416, p < 0.001, d = 0.961) but the between-condition contrast was not (z = 1.085 p = 0.228, d = 0.091). When Condition levels were set to (supplementary 2, main), the between-condition contrast became significant (z = 10.934, p < 0.001, d = 0.981). Hence improvement from A 1 to A 2 in supplementary condition 2 was comparable to that in the control condition. To explore whether low-performing participants disproportionately influenced the above results, the analysis was repeated after excluding individuals whose mean accuracy in A 1 was less than 0.333. These were five participants from the main group, one from the control group, three from supplementary group 1 and five from supplementary group 2. Table 2 shows that the significance pattern did not change, indicating that findings were not unduly driven by poor performers. Table 2 Outcome of planned contrasts within and between conditions a . Levels of Condition Within-condition contrast Between-conditions contrast main, baseline z = 9.406, p < 0.001, d = 0.475 z = 5.312, p < 0.001, d = 0.383 supplementary 1, control z = 6.972, p < 0.001, d = 0.455 z = 4.850, p < 0.001, d = 0.404 supplementary 1, main “ z = 0.236, p = 0.813, d = 0.019 supplementary 2, control z = 10.949, p < 0.001, d = 0.983 z = 1.200, p = 0.230, d = 0.124 supplementary 2, main “ z = 10.934, p < 0.001, d = 0.981 a Significance is highlighted in bold. Discussion The present study examined whether cognitive maps consolidate gradually over time or rather in an all-or-none manner. To address this question, participants learned two cognitive maps in close temporal succession, with task parameters adjusted so that the first layout could be successfully encoded, but only limited time was available to stabilize it before the interfering second map was introduced. If consolidation were an all-or-none process, the first map would either be fully retained or entirely lost by interference. In contrast, the primary hypothesis of the present study assumed that consolidation is a gradual process, predicting that the first map would reach an intermediate level of stability. A supplementary hypothesis extended this reasoning and proposed that providing an additional opportunity for consolidation would enhance stabilization of the first map. To address the primary hypothesis, performance in the main condition (A 1 ->B ->A 2 ) was compared to a control condition in which interfering task B was replaced by a pause of similar length (A 1 ->pause->A 2 ). Planned contrasts yielded that in the main condition, performance improved from A 1 to A 2 ; however, the difference (A 2 - A 1 ) was smaller than in the control condition. This pattern indicates that the map formed during A 1 was neither completely erased by subsequent learning of another map nor as well preserved as after a pause. This outcome replicates earlier evidence that recently acquired spatial memory is vulnerable to interference from subsequent spatial learning (Darling et al., 2007 ; Tresch et al., 1993 ; Zimmer et al., 2003 ). Moreover, it extends this work by demonstrating that interference need not entirely prevent consolidation but may instead attenuate it, thus supporting the primary hypothesis. To investigate the supplementary hypothesis, supplementary condition 1 added a pause to the main condition (A 1 ->pause ->B ->A 2 ) whereas supplementary condition 2 added more practice on the first map (A 1 ->A R ->B ->A 2 ). Planned contrasts showed that in both conditions, performance improved from A 1 to A 2 . Notably, the difference (A 2 - A 1 ) in supplementary condition 1 was comparable to that in the main condition, whereas in supplementary condition 2 it was comparable to that in the control condition. These findings indicate that consolidation did not progress during a ten-minute pause but it did continue during a ten-minute extension of practice on the first map. This outcome supports the supplementary hypothesis and further suggests that continued task engagement, rather than a pause, is required for consolidation to progress. In sum, experimental data are in agreement with both the primary and the supplementary hypothesis, suggesting that the consolidation of cognitive maps was a gradual process The differential effect of the pause in supplementary condition 1 versus ongoing practice in supplementary condition 1 may relate to earlier work on the retention of spatial memory (Awh et al., 1998 ; Craig et al., 2016 ). In those studies spatial memory deteriorated across a period in which participants engaged in another activity, suggesting that focused attention plays an important role for successful retention. Notably, retention is not synonymous with consolidation; the two are dissociable, e.g., by pharmacological interventions (Davis and Squire, 1984 ). Nevertheless, it remains conceivable that directed attention plays a role in consolidation as well. Thus, in supplementary condition 1, everyday activities during the pause likely diverted participants’ attention away from the cognitive map, thereby limiting opportunities for consolidation. In supplementary condition 2, however, ongoing practice kept attention focused on the cognitive map and therefore supported consolidation. If this interpretation is correct, then replacing the pause in supplementary condition 1 with a period of wakeful rest should also support consolidation since attention is not distracted by other activities (Craig et al., 2016 ). This prediction should be explored in settings supervised by an experimenter, since online experiments are not well suited to ensure participants’ adherence to an instructed period of wakeful rest. Taken together, the present findings support a conceptual framework according to which cognitive maps (1) consolidate gradually through practice and (2) neither consolidate nor degrade appreciably during pauses filled with unrelated activities. Figure 3 illustrates how this framework explains the present pattern of findings: During block A 1 in all conditions, the first cognitive map partly consolidated and partly remained vulnerable to interference (c part and v part in Fig. 3 , respectively). In the main condition, v part was degraded during block B while c part persisted. In the control condition, however, v part was largely preserved during the pause so that both v part and c part persisted. In the main condition, therefore, A 2 performance exceeded A 1 performance but the (A 2 – A 1 ) difference was smaller than in the control condition. In supplementary condition 1, v part was also largely preserved during the pause but was degraded during the subsequent block B, so that only c part persisted. Therefore, A 2 performance exceeded A 1 performance but the (A 2 - A 1 ) difference was again smaller than in the control condition and comparable to the experimental condition. In supplementary condition 2, consolidation of the first map proceeded during A R (c full in Fig. 3 ), so that the first map became largely resistant against interference during block B. Consequently, the (A 2 – A 1 ) difference was comparable to the control condition and larger than in the experimental condition. Future research should refine this conceptual framework in several ways. Rather than contrasting one versus two blocks of practice, the amount of practice should be varied gradually to determine the quantitative relationship between practice and consolidation. Furthermore, activities during pauses could be varied to clarify the conditions under which interference arises – whether it is limited specifically to the formation of another map, or extends to mental rotation and other tasks involving visuo-spatial processing. Studies could also examine whether the relationship between practice and consolidation depends on individual differences known to influence spatial cognition, such as sex, age, anxiety or risk-taking propensity (Hegarty et al., 2022 ). The proposed conceptual framework may not necessarily generalize to other experimental paradigms or to real-world situations. First, spatial environments differ in many respects such as spatial layout (ranging from regular grids to a mix of X-, Y-, T- and star-shaped junctions), visual diversity (ranging monotonous sceneries to those with many contrasting elements), and realism (ranging from schematic to photorealistic). Second, self-motion cues can be provided by optic flow but not locomotion (as in the present work), by optic flow and locomotion (as typical in real life), or by neither of these (when participants view static images on a desktop screen). Third, the computational demand for transforming between egocentric and allocentric reference frames can be high (first-person trips with left and right turns), lower (first-person trips without turns) or lower still (participants study physical cartographic maps). These and other factors may influence how interfering tasks, attention withdrawal and wakeful rest affect the formation, consolidation and degradation of cognitive maps. These potential determinants should be addressed by future research. In conclusion, within the methodological constraints of the present study, cognitive maps appear to consolidate gradually with practice, but not with engagement in other activities. Consolidation may therefore not be an all-or-none phenomenon as the metaphor of memory “overwriting” seems to suggest. Declarations Institutional review board statement The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was part of a research program approved by the Ethics Committee of the German Sport University, 062/2020 - „Struktur und Plastizität der Wegfindung” 7. May 2020. Informed consent statement Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Funding This research was funded in part by the Marga und Walter Boll-Stiftung, grant number 210-05.01-21, and in part from the author’s private income. Competing interest The author declares no conflicts of interest. Open practices statements The code for running the experiments and the datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are available from the author on reasonable request. Author contributions The author designed the software, collected, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. References Awh E, Jonides J, Reuter-Lorenz PA (1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 780–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.780 Bancroft TD, Jones JA, Ensor TM, Hockley WE, Servos P (2016). Overwriting and intrusion in short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 44(3), 435–443. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0570-y Bock O, Huang J-Y, Onur OA, Memmert D (2024). The structure of cognitive strategies for wayfinding decisions. Psychological Research, 88(2), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01863-3 Bock O.(2025a). An Experimental Study on the Formation of Spatial Cognitive Maps in Humans. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7234. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137234 Bock O (2025b). Cognitive representations of multilevel buildings: two- or three-dimensional? Experimental Brain Research, 243(9), 202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07136-2 Chrastil ER, Warren WH (2013). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of survey knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1520–1537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032382 Cohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 Craig M, Dewar M, Harris MA, della Sala S, Wolbers T (2016). Wakeful rest promotes the integration of spatial memories into accurate cognitive maps. Hippocampus, 26(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22502 Darling S, della Sala S, Logie RH (2007). Behavioural evidence for separating components within visuo-spatial working memory. Cognitive Processing, 8(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0171-1 Davis HP, Squire LR (1984). Protein synthesis and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 518–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.518 Eggert T, Drever J, Straube A (2014). Interference-free acquisition of overlapping sequences in explicit spatial memory. Behavioural Brain Research, 262, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.047 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007). G* Power 3. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 Galati G, Pelle G, Berthoz A, Committeri G (2010). Multiple reference frames used by the human brain for spatial perception and memory. Experimental Brain Research, 206(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2168-8 Hegarty M. He C, Boone AP, Yu S, Jacobs EG, Chrastil ER (2022). Understanding Differences in Wayfinding Strategies. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12592 Jeffery KJ, Jovalekic A, Verriotis M, Hayman R (2013). Navigating in a three-dimensional world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(5), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12002476 Lu Y, Ye Y (2019). Can people memorize multilevel building as volumetric map? A study of multilevel atrium building. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317705659 Meilinger T, Frankenstein J, Watanabe K, Bülthoff HH, Hölscher C (2015). Reference frames in learning from maps and navigation. Psychological Research, 79(6), 1000–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0629-6 Nadel L, Moscovitch M (1997). Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia and the hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80010-4 Nairne JS (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition, 18(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213879 O’Keefe J, Nadel L (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Peer M, Nadar C, Epstein RA (2024). The format of the cognitive map depends on the structure of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(1), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001498 Richardson AE, Montello DR, Hegarty M (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 741–750. doi.org/10.3758/BF03211566 Tlauka M, Wilson PN (1994). The effect of landmarks on route-learning in a computer-simulated environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(4), 305–313. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80221-X Tolman EC (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626 Tresch MC, Sinnamon HM, Seamon JG (1993). Double dissociation of spatial and object visual memory: Evidence from selective interference in intact human subjects. Neuropsychologia, 31(3), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90085-E Waller D, Lippa Y (2007). Landmarks as beacons and associative cues. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 910–924. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193465 Zimmer HD, Speiser HR, Seidler B (2003). Spatio-temporal working-memory and short-term object-location tasks use different memory mechanisms. Acta Psychologica, 114(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00049-0 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8086337","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":549289471,"identity":"30f354a3-5bd4-4d0d-9e76-47e9067d0118","order_by":0,"name":"Otmar Bock","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"German Sport University Cologne","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Otmar","middleName":"","lastName":"Bock","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-11 11:38:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96710987,"identity":"fe01387c-177e-4c78-be33-a3ee3e412537","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:11:29","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":273673,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript2mapinteractionEBR.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/589eed802b1081a233648a2c.docx"},{"id":96710766,"identity":"b712a7f3-85c9-4ae1-9a7e-d2755568a4a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:11:10","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2972,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ad1f865a35ed4662b575ac5cbd31bfeb.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/f110eac6da73c33753fcee8f.json"},{"id":96711490,"identity":"081cd704-051e-4798-aea7-c8f94e6e9d55","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:12:05","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":82514,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ad1f865a35ed4662b575ac5cbd31bfeb1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/075c8d6160c072e8852d5072.xml"},{"id":96693891,"identity":"b32a8b18-5ae2-4c2f-b16a-d0046bff2459","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":60167,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/13d3e1105f2bd34c051a80d4.jpeg"},{"id":96711581,"identity":"26be0a0c-b092-4a27-b09a-7b70a56d0eda","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:12:15","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/e74cc26c2e40504b5f7174cc.jpeg"},{"id":96711208,"identity":"1e1a04ec-c028-42af-a993-7546246252f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:11:46","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":59310,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/1a4fb9a62d4bc9ff6adf5ee8.jpeg"},{"id":96693889,"identity":"0c764aa2-9ddc-4e67-85f7-2daf4a6c2a2c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/13e12cc99fdc29f1e1599fcd.png"},{"id":96693892,"identity":"010b1fcc-e5fb-4278-b0ce-ce455c6e9938","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33213,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/03989baa015d32f250b13caa.png"},{"id":96710843,"identity":"136be4d7-3c82-4d97-80f7-42dd3529a0ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 10:11:16","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":22157,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/66473c2b63cd2bdc23835f4a.png"},{"id":96693901,"identity":"94ee058d-8ca1-4057-92c1-21547cc58288","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":81779,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ad1f865a35ed4662b575ac5cbd31bfeb1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/c2ed644a1cb2ee3a474ac45f.xml"},{"id":96693902,"identity":"52e3c219-d86b-4699-a5b1-74eb7c7a86dc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":86769,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/b89e96c12d5ffda6d9749edb.html"},{"id":96693899,"identity":"b51b455f-ca0e-4290-b3d8-394ab4325700","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":255111,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e) Exemplary screenshot of a maze intersection as seen by participants on learning trips. The green diamond is the shape presented at this particular intersection. (\u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e) Schematic drawing of the maze, with blue discs symbolizing intersections and blue lines the connecting corridors. This drawing was shown to participants before each learning trip, with red arrows indicating the upcoming route, and was shown during the test without arrows.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/d93a4275c1241ad836b12edf.png"},{"id":96693888,"identity":"9f121cb2-2dc7-4ef7-bd1a-4f41bb6c1ef7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":240475,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAccuracy in the experimental and control group during tests in Block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e(left) \u003c/strong\u003eand A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cstrong\u003eright\u003c/strong\u003e). Each dot represents the accuracy of one person in one test; the dots are jittered horizontally and vertically to reduce overlap. By definition, accuracy is bounded by 0 and 1. Tukey style box plots are overlaid to visualize data distributions.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/3cc226be271dc11f2ecefbc2.png"},{"id":96693894,"identity":"f54166c0-2fab-4a66-947c-33d0d44e59c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-25 07:15:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":238348,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic representation of possible consolidation processes in the present study. c\u003csub\u003epart \u003c/sub\u003e+ v\u003csub\u003epart \u003c/sub\u003erefer to partial consolidation of the first map combined with partial vulnerability to interference, and c\u003csub\u003efull\u003c/sub\u003e to strong or complete consolidation of the first map with little vulnerability to interference. Arrows represent the flow of spatial information but not the passage of time, as all blocks were scheduled in immediate succession.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/0b11e97d1bfa9c1e206a6e35.png"},{"id":97136134,"identity":"40e6b825-c368-4344-8036-ae8f29963891","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-01 09:55:46","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1331848,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8086337/v1/5582958a-ed07-4c43-9d26-bd3024eefe72.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Consolidation of cognitive maps as a gradual process","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWayfinding through buildings, cities and landscapes often relies on internal representations of the environment, called \u0026ldquo;cognitive maps\u0026rdquo; (Tolman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1948\u003c/span\u003e). Such maps allow us to reach a variety of destinations from different starting points and along different routes - for instance, taking the shortest or the most scenic route, or finding a detour around roadblocks. This flexibility is not offered by alternative wayfinding strategies that are limited to a fixed route or a single destination (Tlauka and Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Waller and Lippa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive maps are not exact models of the real world: they can be fragmented, distorted, influenced by assumptions, poor in detail, and sometimes even non-metric (Chrastil and Warren, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Peer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). They can be anchored in different reference frames, such as a person\u0026rsquo;s body (head, trunk or limbs), environmental boundaries, or cardinal directions (Galati et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Meilinger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e), two-or three-dimensional depending on task demand (Bock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e; Jeffery et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Lu and Ye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), and their fidelity does not depend o the number of encoded locations, suggesting that environments can be represented holistically (Bock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is well established by behavioral and neurophysiological data from humans and rodents that spatial memory resides in the hippocampus (O\u0026rsquo;Keefe and Nadel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e). There it is initially encoded in a fragile form susceptible to interference from new incoming information. Over time, however, it is stabilized by increasing the efficiency of participating synapses \u0026ndash; a phenomenon referred to as \u0026ldquo;cellular consolidation\u0026rdquo;. This type of consolidation is distinct from \u0026ldquo;systems consolidation\u0026rdquo;, which involves the transfer of memory content from hippocampal to neocortical circuits and its storage in a less detailed, more generalized form (Nadel and Moscovitch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Evidence for cellular consolidation of spatial memory comes from studies showing that memory for learned locations is degraded when a second spatial task is administered within minutes after the first, but remains intact when the second task is introduced after a delay of four hours or more (Darling et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Eggert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Tresch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Zimmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe above studies on cellular consolidation of spatial memory administered two blocks of spatial task A and a block of spatial task B in the order A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and compared performance during A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e to that in a control condition in which B was replaced by a pause of either attentive rest, a scheduled non-spatial task, or everyday activities. A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance in the main condition was poorer than in the control condition when the delay between blocks was short, but not when it was long. This finding was appropriately interpreted as evidence for delay-dependent interference, a hallmark of cellular consolidation. However, it remained unclear whether brief delays completely abolished consolidation, or merely attenuated it. This distinction is critical, as it relates to two competing views on the function of interfering tasks. According to one view, pre-existing memory traces are overwritten by new ones (Nairne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), whereas according to the other, pre-existing and new memory traces compete with each other (Bancroft et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The former view aligns with abolished consolidation, and the latter fits well with attenuated consolidation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo find out whether consolidation of spatial memory is abolished or attenuated by another spatial task, the present study replicated the above experimental designs but evaluated performance not only during A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, but also during A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. This allowed the examination of following predictions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf consolidation is abolished by B, then A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e should not benefit from the spatial knowledge acquired during A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. Therefore in the main condition, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance should be similar to A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf consolidation is attenuated but not abolished by B, then in then main condition, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance should exceed A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e performance, but this improvement (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) should be smaller than in the baseline condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf consolidation is not affected by B at all, then in the main condition, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance should again exceed A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e performance, and the improvement (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) should be similar to the baseline condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, abolished, attenuated and full consolidation can be distinguished by two comparisons: A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e versus A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e within the main condition, and the improvement (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) in the main versus the baseline condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpatial task A and B each required participants to memorize twelve locations encountered in a virtual maze on six learning trips. According to earlier research by the author\u0026rsquo;s group (e.g., Bock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), such a task takes about ten minutes and is neither too easy nor overwhelmingly difficult. The working hypothesis was that with these tasks, consolidation of A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e will be attenuated but not abolished if B is administered immediately after A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. According to a supplementary hypothesis, consolidation of A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e will continue if it is given more time before B is administered. The latter hypothesis was examined by introducing, before block B, either a ten-minute pause filled with everyday activities, or a ten-minute repetition block of task A (block A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e). Thus, supplementary condition 1 had the block sequence A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, and supplementary condition 2 had the block sequence A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. The former condition addresses additional \u0026ldquo;offline\u0026rdquo; consolidation while attention is directed elsewhere, whereas the latter examines additional \u0026ldquo;online\u0026rdquo; consolidation through continued engagement with the target task.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIf both hypotheses are confirmed experimentally, i.e., if consolidation is incomplete in the main condition but gains additional strength in the supplementary conditions, this would suggest that consolidation is a gradual process, evolving over time, not an all-or-none phenomenon as implied by the \u0026ldquo;overwriting\u0026rdquo; metaphor.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne hundred and twelve persons were recruited via the internet platform Prolific, with the inclusion criteria of age range 20 to 40 and fluency in English (since instructions were presented in English). Among them, 38 were assigned to the main condition (mean age 30.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.2 years, 13 females), 38 to the control condition (mean age 29.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.9 years, 14 females), 18 to supplementary condition 1 (37.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.1 years of age, 9 females) and 18 to supplementary condition 2 (39.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.6 years of age, 7 females). The study was part of a larger research program pre-approved by the author\u0026rsquo;s institutional Ethics Commission (Approval No. 062/2020). Informed consent was obtained from each participant before testing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCognitive mapping task\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe task was administered remotely on the participants\u0026rsquo; desktop computers via the online platform Gorilla. To ensure consistency with earlier work of the author\u0026rsquo;s group, cognitive mapping was assessed using virtual grid mazes with a plain and uniform interior design. A unique geometric shape was placed at each of twelve adjacent intersections forming a grid of three intersections forward and four sideways (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). During \u003cb\u003elearning trips\u003c/b\u003e, participants had to memorize the locations of these shapes; during interleaved \u003cb\u003etests\u003c/b\u003e, they had to indicate the location of each shape on a schematic drawing of the maze. Abstract geometric shapes, rather than realistic objects, were used to minimize encoding by narratives (e.g., \u0026ldquo;the bulldozer drove through the tent to hit the tower\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring each \u003cb\u003elearning trip\u003c/b\u003e, participants viewed a virtual tour through the maze from a first-person perspective (as in Fug. 1 a). They travelled from one intersection to the next within 2 seconds, and then stopped for 2.5 seconds while the geometric shape located at that intersection was displayed straight ahead. The trips included no left or right turns. For example, instead of a right turn followed by another right turn, participants saw a sideway shift (as if looking through the side window of a moving vehicle) followed by a backward shift (as if looking through the vehicle\u0026rsquo;s rear window). In this way, participants\u0026rsquo; egocentric straight-ahead was aligned with the mazes\u0026rsquo; allocentric North throughout the trip. Such an alignment facilitates spatial orientation in a virtual grid maze (Bock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025b\u003c/span\u003e), likely by avoiding the cognitive demand associated with rotational transformations between egocentric and allocentric reference frames.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach \u003cb\u003etest\u003c/b\u003e displayed a schematic drawing of the maze (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb, but without red arrows), together with one of the previously encountered geometric shapes. Participants indicated the shape\u0026rsquo;s location by clicking on the corresponding intersection with the mouse. When the response was correct, the next shape appeared immediately. When the response was incorrect or not given within 12 seconds, an error message was displayed for 3 seconds before the next shape appeared, etc., until all twelve shapes had been responded to. This testing procedure was chosen over an alternative in which participants re-visit the shapes in first-person perspective, since it avoids the response bias arising from inaccurate self-orientation during such re-visits (Bock, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were informed that they would proceed through virtual mazes and subsequently report the locations of geometric shapes encountered along the way. For familiarization, they first completed a short learning trip forward across three intersections, followed by a test. Unlike in the main experiment, this test required each incorrect response to be repeated until a correct response was given. Familiarization then continued with a second learning trip, this time rightward across three intersections, and a second test. Thus, by the end of familiarization, each participant had given six correct responses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe actual experiment began with block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, the first block of trials in which participants acquired cognitive map A. In this block, learning trips (L) and tests (T) alternated according to the sequence L-L-T-L-T-L-T-L-T-L-T. Each learning trip took a different route through the maze, so that participants encountered the same shapes at the same intersections - but in a different serial order. Similarly, the serial order of shapes differed between tests, and differed from all orders on the learning trips. This variation of serial order was implemented to prevent reliance on serial order as a mnemonic cue. At the onset of each learning trip, participants were shown a schematic drawing of the maze, but with arrows indicating the upcoming route (see example in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb), to facilitate self-orientation during the trip. At the same time, they were reminded of their task to memorize shape locations rather shape serial order.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDepending on the condition to which participants were assigned, block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was followed by\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eblock B, in which participants acquired a different cognitive map,\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e a pause, in which participants engaged in everyday activities (compliance with this instruction was confirmed during debriefing), or\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eblock A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e, which was a replica of block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment ended for all conditions with block A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, another replica of A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. The order of blocks was A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in the main condition, A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in the control condition, A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in supplementary condition 1, and A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in supplementary condition 2. The duration of each block was about 10 minutes. Intervals between blocks were a few seconds, depending on the time participants needed to read the instruction screen.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe virtual mazes used in blocks A and B differed only in that the color and location of shapes was not the same. For instance, one maze displayed a red triangle at the front-far-left intersection, whereas the other displayed a purple triangle at the rear-near-left intersection. The assignment of mazes to blocks A and B was balanced across participants from each condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerformance was quantified as response accuracy, defined as the proportion of correct responses on each test. Since this metric was bounded by 0 and 1 and therefore was not normally distributed, statistical analysis took a logistic approach, based on a generalized linear mixed-effects model with binomial error distribution and logit link function. The model included the fixed effects Condition, Block (A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), Test (1 to 5), all their interactions, and Sex (f, m). A random intercept for participant ID accounted for repeated measures. The model was fitted using the R function \u003cem\u003eglmer\u003c/em\u003e from the lme4 package, using the \u003cem\u003ebobyqa\u003c/em\u003e optimizer to ensure convergence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe primary hypothesis, stipulating that A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e consolidation is attenuated in the main condition, was examined using the two planned comparisons described in the Introduction section. The levels of fixed effect Condition were set to (main, control), and the model outcome was analyzed with the R functions \u003cem\u003eemmeans\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003econtrast\u003c/em\u003e from the emmeans package to compute two planned contrasts. One contrast compared A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e versus A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e within the main condition, and the second compared the performance improvement (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) in the main versus in the control condition. Statistical significance was assessed on the model\u0026rsquo;s logit scale without correcting for multiple-comparisons, consistent with the a priori specification of these contrasts. Effect sizes were computed following Chinn (2000), by multiplying each logit coefficient by \u0026radic;3/π to obtain a metric comparable to Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e under logistic regression. Benchmarks for small, medium, and large effects are d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSupplementary hypothesis 1, predicting that consolidation will increase if A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e is followed by a pause, was evaluated analogously except that two models were fitted. Condition had the levels (supplementary 1, control) in one model, and had the levels (supplementary 1, main) in the other. Supplementary hypothesis 2, maintaining that consolidation will increase if A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e is followed by additional task practice, was examined accordingly: Condition had the levels (supplementary 2, control) in one model, and (supplementary 2, main) in the other.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRequired sample size n\u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e was estimated with G*Power (Faul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), using f\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5, a\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 and \u0026szlig; = 0.95, yielding n \u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e = 54 both for a within-group comparison of two repeated measures (contrast 1) and for a within-between comparison of two groups x two repeated measures (contrast 2). Hence the actual sample sizes, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;76 for the first hypothesis and n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;56 for each supplementary hypothesis, were larger than n \u003csub\u003er\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Accuracy in the experimental and control group during tests in Block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cb\u003e(left)\u003c/b\u003e and A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e (\u003cb\u003eright\u003c/b\u003e). Each dot represents the accuracy of one person in one test; the dots are jittered horizontally and vertically to reduce overlap. By definition, accuracy is bounded by 0 and 1. Tukey style box plots are overlaid to visualize data distributions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e exemplifies the overall pattern in the generalized linear mixed-effects model by the results of Type III likelihood-ratio tests and the corresponding effect sizes when Condition was set to (main, baseline). Significant and substantial effects emerged for Block, Test, and all interactions, a pattern that is difficult to interpret. The present analysis therefore focused on the hypothesis-driven planned comparisons described in the Introduction and Methods sections.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults of Type-III likelihood-ratio tests and the corresponding effect sizes\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEffect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSex\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.049\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCondition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.298\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.130\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlock\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e343.199\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.410\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e366.235\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.383\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCondition x Block\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.262\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.058\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCondition x Test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.240\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.024\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.013\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlock x Test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.808\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.051\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCondition x Block x Test\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.882\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.012\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.015\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Tests were computed in the R function \u003cem\u003eAnova\u003c/em\u003e from the car package, Effect sizes R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e were computed as χ\u0026sup2;_effect / Σχ\u0026sup2;_total), as originally proposed by Nagelkerke (1991) for generalized linear models. Benchmarks for small, medium and large effects are R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, 0.06, and 0.14, respectively (Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). Significant effects are highlighted in bold.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen Condition levels were set to (main, control), the contrast comparing A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e versus A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e within the main condition was significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.947, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.398). Likewise, the contrast comparing the improvement (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) in the main versus in the control condition was significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.622, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.390). Hence performance in the main condition improved from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, but this improvement was smaller than in the control condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith Condition levels set to (supplementary 1, control), the within-condition contrast was again significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.293, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.497), as was the between-condition contrast (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.751, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.372). However, when Condition levels were set to (supplementary 1, main), the between-condition contrast was not significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.430, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.153, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.108). Thus, improvement from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in supplementary condition 1 was comparable to that in the main condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWith Condition levels set to (supplementary 2, control), the within-condition contrast was significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.416, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.961) but the between-condition contrast was not (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.085 p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.228, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.091). When Condition levels were set to (supplementary 2, main), the between-condition contrast became significant (z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.934, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.981). Hence improvement from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e in supplementary condition 2 was comparable to that in the control condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore whether low-performing participants disproportionately influenced the above results, the analysis was repeated after excluding individuals whose mean accuracy in A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was less than 0.333. These were five participants from the main group, one from the control group, three from supplementary group 1 and five from supplementary group 2. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that the significance pattern did not change, indicating that findings were not unduly driven by poor performers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcome of planned contrasts within and between conditions\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevels of Condition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWithin-condition contrast\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBetween-conditions contrast\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003emain, baseline\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.406, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.475\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.312, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.383\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esupplementary 1, control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.972, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.455\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.850, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.404\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esupplementary 1, main\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.236, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.813, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.019\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esupplementary 2, control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.949, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.983\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.200, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.230, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.124\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003esupplementary 2, main\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ez\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.934, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, d\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.981\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eSignificance is highlighted in bold.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study examined whether cognitive maps consolidate gradually over time or rather in an all-or-none manner. To address this question, participants learned two cognitive maps in close temporal succession, with task parameters adjusted so that the first layout could be successfully encoded, but only limited time was available to stabilize it before the interfering second map was introduced. If consolidation were an all-or-none process, the first map would either be fully retained or entirely lost by interference. In contrast, the primary hypothesis of the present study assumed that consolidation is a gradual process, predicting that the first map would reach an intermediate level of stability. A supplementary hypothesis extended this reasoning and proposed that providing an additional opportunity for consolidation would enhance stabilization of the first map.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address the primary hypothesis, performance in the main condition (A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) was compared to a control condition in which interfering task B was replaced by a pause of similar length (A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause-\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). Planned contrasts yielded that in the main condition, performance improved from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e; however, the difference (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) was smaller than in the control condition. This pattern indicates that the map formed during A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was neither completely erased by subsequent learning of another map nor as well preserved as after a pause. This outcome replicates earlier evidence that recently acquired spatial memory is vulnerable to interference from subsequent spatial learning (Darling et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Tresch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Zimmer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, it extends this work by demonstrating that interference need not entirely prevent consolidation but may instead attenuate it, thus supporting the primary hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo investigate the supplementary hypothesis, supplementary condition 1 added a pause to the main condition (A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e) whereas supplementary condition 2 added more practice on the first map (A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). Planned contrasts showed that in both conditions, performance improved from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e. Notably, the difference (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) in supplementary condition 1 was comparable to that in the main condition, whereas in supplementary condition 2 it was comparable to that in the control condition. These findings indicate that consolidation did not progress during a ten-minute pause but it did continue during a ten-minute extension of practice on the first map. This outcome supports the supplementary hypothesis and further suggests that continued task engagement, rather than a pause, is required for consolidation to progress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn sum, experimental data are in agreement with both the primary and the supplementary hypothesis, suggesting that the consolidation of cognitive maps was a gradual process\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe differential effect of the pause in supplementary condition 1 versus ongoing practice in supplementary condition 1 may relate to earlier work on the retention of spatial memory (Awh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Craig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In those studies spatial memory deteriorated across a period in which participants engaged in another activity, suggesting that focused attention plays an important role for successful retention. Notably, retention is not synonymous with consolidation; the two are dissociable, e.g., by pharmacological interventions (Davis and Squire, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, it remains conceivable that directed attention plays a role in consolidation as well. Thus, in supplementary condition 1, everyday activities during the pause likely diverted participants\u0026rsquo; attention away from the cognitive map, thereby limiting opportunities for consolidation. In supplementary condition 2, however, ongoing practice kept attention focused on the cognitive map and therefore supported consolidation. If this interpretation is correct, then replacing the pause in supplementary condition 1 with a period of wakeful rest should also support consolidation since attention is not distracted by other activities (Craig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This prediction should be explored in settings supervised by an experimenter, since online experiments are not well suited to ensure participants\u0026rsquo; adherence to an instructed period of wakeful rest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the present findings support a conceptual framework according to which cognitive maps (1) consolidate gradually through practice and (2) neither consolidate nor degrade appreciably during pauses filled with unrelated activities. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates how this framework explains the present pattern of findings:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring block A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e in all conditions, the first cognitive map partly consolidated and partly remained vulnerable to interference (c\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e and v\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, respectively).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the main condition, v\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e was degraded during block B while c\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e persisted. In the control condition, however, v\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e was largely preserved during the pause so that both v\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e and c\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e persisted. In the main condition, therefore, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance exceeded A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e performance but the (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) difference was smaller than in the control condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn supplementary condition 1, v\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e was also largely preserved during the pause but was degraded during the subsequent block B, so that only c\u003csub\u003epart\u003c/sub\u003e persisted. Therefore, A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e performance exceeded A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e performance but the (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e - A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) difference was again smaller than in the control condition and comparable to the experimental condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn supplementary condition 2, consolidation of the first map proceeded during A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e (c\u003csub\u003efull\u003c/sub\u003e in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), so that the first map became largely resistant against interference during block B. Consequently, the (A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e) difference was comparable to the control condition and larger than in the experimental condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should refine this conceptual framework in several ways. Rather than contrasting one versus two blocks of practice, the amount of practice should be varied gradually to determine the quantitative relationship between practice and consolidation. Furthermore, activities during pauses could be varied to clarify the conditions under which interference arises \u0026ndash; whether it is limited specifically to the formation of another map, or extends to mental rotation and other tasks involving visuo-spatial processing. Studies could also examine whether the relationship between practice and consolidation depends on individual differences known to influence spatial cognition, such as sex, age, anxiety or risk-taking propensity (Hegarty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe proposed conceptual framework may not necessarily generalize to other experimental paradigms or to real-world situations. First, spatial environments differ in many respects such as spatial layout (ranging from regular grids to a mix of X-, Y-, T- and star-shaped junctions), visual diversity (ranging monotonous sceneries to those with many contrasting elements), and realism (ranging from schematic to photorealistic). Second, self-motion cues can be provided by optic flow but not locomotion (as in the present work), by optic flow \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eand\u003c/span\u003e locomotion (as typical in real life), or by neither of these (when participants view static images on a desktop screen). Third, the computational demand for transforming between egocentric and allocentric reference frames can be high (first-person trips with left and right turns), lower (first-person trips without turns) or lower still (participants study physical cartographic maps). These and other factors may influence how interfering tasks, attention withdrawal and wakeful rest affect the formation, consolidation and degradation of cognitive maps. These potential determinants should be addressed by future research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, within the methodological constraints of the present study, cognitive maps appear to consolidate gradually with practice, but not with engagement in other activities. Consolidation may therefore not be an all-or-none phenomenon as the metaphor of memory \u0026ldquo;overwriting\u0026rdquo; seems to suggest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInstitutional review board statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. It was part of a research program approved by the Ethics Committee of the German Sport University, 062/2020 - \u0026bdquo;Struktur und Plastizität der Wegfindung\u0026rdquo; 7. May 2020.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded in part by the Marga und Walter Boll-Stiftung, grant number 210-05.01-21, and in part from the author\u0026rsquo;s private income.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interest\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpen practices statements\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe code for running the experiments and the datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author designed the software, collected, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAwh E, Jonides J, Reuter-Lorenz PA (1998). Rehearsal in spatial working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 780\u0026ndash;790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.780\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBancroft TD, Jones JA, Ensor TM, Hockley WE, Servos P (2016). Overwriting and intrusion in short-term memory. Memory \u0026amp; Cognition, 44(3), 435\u0026ndash;443. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0570-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBock O, Huang J-Y, Onur OA, Memmert D (2024). The structure of cognitive strategies for wayfinding decisions. Psychological Research, 88(2), 476\u0026ndash;486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01863-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBock O.(2025a). An Experimental Study on the Formation of Spatial Cognitive Maps in Humans. Applied Sciences, 15(13), 7234. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15137234\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBock O (2025b). Cognitive representations of multilevel buildings: two- or three-dimensional? Experimental Brain Research, 243(9), 202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-025-07136-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChrastil ER, Warren WH (2013). Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: Acquisition of survey knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1520\u0026ndash;1537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032382\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen J (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCraig M, Dewar M, Harris MA, della Sala S, Wolbers T (2016). Wakeful rest promotes the integration of spatial memories into accurate cognitive maps. Hippocampus, 26(2), 185\u0026ndash;193. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22502\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDarling S, della Sala S, Logie RH (2007). Behavioural evidence for separating components within visuo-spatial working memory. Cognitive Processing, 8(3), 175\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0171-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavis HP, Squire LR (1984). Protein synthesis and memory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 518\u0026ndash;559. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.518\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEggert T, Drever J, Straube A (2014). Interference-free acquisition of overlapping sequences in explicit spatial memory. Behavioural Brain Research, 262, 21\u0026ndash;30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.047\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007). G* Power 3. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175\u0026ndash;191. doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalati G, Pelle G, Berthoz A, Committeri G (2010). Multiple reference frames used by the human brain for spatial perception and memory. Experimental Brain Research, 206(2), 109\u0026ndash;120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2168-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHegarty M. He C, Boone AP, Yu S, Jacobs EG, Chrastil ER (2022). Understanding Differences in Wayfinding Strategies. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12592\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeffery KJ, Jovalekic A, Verriotis M, Hayman R (2013). Navigating in a three-dimensional world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(5), 523\u0026ndash;543. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12002476\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu Y, Ye Y (2019). Can people memorize multilevel building as volumetric map? A study of multilevel atrium building. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(2), 225\u0026ndash;242. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317705659\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeilinger T, Frankenstein J, Watanabe K, B\u0026uuml;lthoff HH, H\u0026ouml;lscher C (2015). Reference frames in learning from maps and navigation. Psychological Research, 79(6), 1000\u0026ndash;1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0629-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNadel L, Moscovitch M (1997). Memory consolidation, retrograde amnesia and the hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 7(2), 217\u0026ndash;227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(97)80010-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNairne JS (1990). A feature model of immediate memory. Memory \u0026amp; Cognition, 18(3), 251\u0026ndash;269. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213879\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Keefe J, Nadel L (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeer M, Nadar C, Epstein RA (2024). The format of the cognitive map depends on the structure of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(1), 224\u0026ndash;240. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichardson AE, Montello DR, Hegarty M (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory \u0026amp; Cognition, 27(4), 741\u0026ndash;750. doi.org/10.3758/BF03211566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTlauka M, Wilson PN (1994). The effect of landmarks on route-learning in a computer-simulated environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(4), 305\u0026ndash;313. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80221-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTolman EC (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55(4), 189\u0026ndash;208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061626\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTresch MC, Sinnamon HM, Seamon JG (1993). Double dissociation of spatial and object visual memory: Evidence from selective interference in intact human subjects. Neuropsychologia, 31(3), 211\u0026ndash;219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90085-E\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaller D, Lippa Y (2007). Landmarks as beacons and associative cues. Memory \u0026amp; Cognition, 35(5), 910\u0026ndash;924. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193465\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimmer HD, Speiser HR, Seidler B (2003). Spatio-temporal working-memory and short-term object-location tasks use different memory mechanisms. Acta Psychologica, 114(1), 41\u0026ndash;65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00049-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"spatial cognition, navigation, consolidation, interference","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCognitive maps of the environment are initially encoded in a fragile form susceptible to interference, but they can stabilized over time \u0026ndash; a process called \u0026ldquo;consolidation\u0026rdquo;. This study investigated whether consolidation is a gradual or an all-or-none process. In the main condition, participants formed first a map of environment A, then a map of environment B, and then returned to A (sequence: A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). Performance increased from A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e to A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e, but this increase was smaller than in a control condition where B was replaced by a pause filled with unrelated activities (sequence: A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). Performance remained comparable to the main condition when a pause was added after A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (sequence: A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;pause -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e), but improved and became comparable to the control condition when a replica of A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was added (sequence: A\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003eR\u003c/sub\u003e -\u0026gt;B -\u0026gt;A\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e). This pattern of findings suggests that (1) cognitive maps consolidate gradually rather than abruptly, and (2) consolidation proceeds during practice but not during pauses filled with other activities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Consolidation of cognitive maps as a gradual process","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-25 07:14:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8086337/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a79025ed-4d6b-420f-a272-5dfb9df54059","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-11T19:38:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-25 07:14:58","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8086337","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8086337","identity":"rs-8086337","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}