Pre-protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities

Alberto Massimiliano Umiltà; Giorgio Li Pira; Ford Burles; Giovanni Ottoboni; Alessia Tessari

doi:10.12688/openreseurope.19436.3

. 2025 Oct 31;5:42. Originally published 2025 Feb 5. [Version 3] doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.19436.3

Pre-protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities

Alberto Massimiliano Umiltà ^1,^a, Giorgio Li Pira ^1,^b, Ford Burles ², Giovanni Ottoboni ¹, Alessia Tessari ¹

PMCID: PMC12501587 PMID: 41064563

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 2

Added content on translational opportunities in the Discussion section: Specifically, we now highlight the potential applications of the VSCT for healthy older adults at risk of spatial disorientation, as well as for educational contexts where spatial ability is linked to STEM achievement. This addition emphasizes the broader societal relevance of the project and positions the VSCT as both a rehabilitative/diagnostic tool and a platform with potential benefits for resilience, independence, and academic success.

Abstract

This study proposes the validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), a novel task designed to evaluate cognitive map formation abilities in participants. Addressing a notable gap in spatial cognition research, particularly in the assessment of higher-level spatial abilities in 3D environments, the VSCT offers a virtual reality (VR) approach that allows users to explore and recall spatial relationships between landmarks. This task is particularly innovative for populations with impaired mobility, as it simplifies navigation by restricting movement to rotational exploration, thus improving accessibility and reducing motion sickness. Furthermore, the VSCT could serve a dual purpose: assessing spatial orientation skills while also providing a platform for training and improving these skills post-injury. The potential applications of this tool extend to neurorehabilitation and other therapeutic interventions, offering an engaging, immersive method for enhancing spatial abilities.

Keywords: spatial cognition, recall, working memory, cognitive neuroscience

Introduction

“Spatial ability can be defined as the capacity to generate, retain, retrieve and transform spatial representations” ( Burles, 2014 pp.4). Those abilities depend on multiple sensory cues, computational mechanisms, and spatial representations ( Umiltà, 2021). The efficacy of spatial orientation and navigation depends on the complex integration and manipulation of multisensory information across time and space. Spatial abilities in humans have been investigated using two types of tasks: figural-scale and environmental-scale ( Jansen, 2009). Figural-scale tasks assess abilities such as spatial perception, mental rotation, visualization, and orientation ( Linn & Petersen, 1985), and environmental-scale tasks involve large stimuli like rooms, buildings, and neighborhoods ( Hegarty et al., 2006).

As pointed out by Bartlett and Camba (2022), spatial ability tests that attempt to assess 3D abilities through 2D media have limitations: Any 2D image is inherently ambiguous when it comes to interpreting a 3D shape from the image ( Pizlo, 2008). Black and white line drawings used in these tests introduce ambiguity due to perceptual challenges such as multi-stability and difficulties associated with axonometric projections, which do not align naturally with human visual perception and can be complex to interpret Bartlett & Camba (2022). Furthermore, 2D tests do not allow participants to move and explore the environment. This factor is crucial considering the role of proprioceptive feedback and the vestibular system in the encoding and maintenance of spatial configurations in memory. The lack of proprioceptive feedback means participants are unable to use the sensory information from their own movements and body positions to build and maintain accurate spatial representations. This omission neglects the dynamic and interactive nature of spatial learning and navigation, where proprioceptive cues significantly enhance the fidelity of the cognitive map by providing continuous updates about one's position and movement within the environment. ( Bayramova et al., 2021; Fetsch et al., 2009; Nardini et al., 2008). Here we define cognitive map as a mental representation of the spatial layout of an environment, allowing an individual to acquire, code, store, recall, and decode information about the relative locations of places, landmarks, and routes ( Tolman, 1948).

In our study, translational movement is not performed by participants. Instead, participants are seated in a swivel chair that allows them to actively rotate their torso left and right, enabling 360-degree exploration of the environment. These self-generated rotations provide limited but present vestibular and proprioceptive feedback. In particular, yaw-plane movements engage the vestibular system via stimulation of the semicircular canals responsible for detecting angular acceleration ( Ehtemam et al., 2012), while proprioceptive input is involved through trunk muscle activity and postural adjustments during chair rotation ( Ivanenko et al., 1999).

Moreover, vestibular signal processing during active rotation is known to depend on the match between predicted and actual proprioceptive feedback. When this match is present, the brain can suppress vestibular reafference, allowing for stable perception of self-motion. However, in the presence of a mismatch, vestibular neurons continue to encode the full signal, underscoring the functional role of proprioceptive input even in non-translational movement contexts ( Brooks & Cullen, 2014); ( Cullen & Zobeiri, 2021).

Strategies of spatial orientation and navigation

Large-scale spatial cognition involves complex processes such as learning spatial relationships between environmental objects, maintaining these relationships in memory, and using this knowledge to navigate and communicate spatial information ( Hegarty et al., 2006). Vision is typically the primary sense for understanding spatial layouts, but non-visual senses also play critical roles, including the vestibular system, which informs about linear and angular accelerations ( Casale et al., 2023), kinesthesis, which senses limb movement ( Ehinger et al., 2014), and proprioceptive information about self-movement and body position originates from sensors in our muscles and joints ( Chance et al., 1998; Sheeran & Ahmed, 2020). Working memory helps piece together spaces from multiple perspectives, encoding information in various formats such as verbal sequences of route directions or spatial configurations ( Hegarty et al., 2006). Research shows that encoding self-motion through body-based senses enhances the ability to create and use cognitive maps effectively ( Bayramova et al., 2021). Two types of mental representation of spatial layouts are typically distinguished: Route Knowledge, which consists of rigid, egocentric representations based on sequential routes and landmarks ( Aguirre & D’Esposito, 1999), and Cognitive Maps, which are flexible, allocentric representations storing the identities and spatial relationships of landmarks ( Aguirre & D’Esposito, 1999; Tolman, 1948). This strategy allows navigation using landmarks and their relative positions ( O’keefe & Nadel, 1979; Tolman, 1948). Moreover, spatial navigation can rely on allocentric (approaches where an individual or organism navigates the environment using an external frame of reference, independent of their own position or orientation) and egocentric (approaches where an individual or organism navigates the environment based on their own position and orientation) strategies, and the distinction isn't always straightforward, often depending on individual differences, as well as task and environmental demands. The most reliable source of information dynamically determines the navigation approach, although disorientation can still occur in novel environments, highlighting the complexity of spatial navigation ( Fetsch et al., 2009; Nardini et al., 2008). Environmental factors play a crucial role here; in landmark-rich environments, allocentric strategies tend to dominate, whereas featureless environments like deserts may rely more on egocentric cues, despite their potential for error and disorientation ( Souman et al., 2009). Therefore, while allocentric and egocentric strategies provide foundational frameworks for understanding spatial cognition, navigation involves a complex interplay of these strategies and their integration with various cognitive processes. These factors must be considered in assessing spatial abilities

Validation of a new 3D spatial task

In spatial cognition research, there is a notable gap concerning the development of programs designed to assess higher-level spatial abilities, such as the formation of cognitive maps in 3D environments.

Research has shown that individual differences in working memory and navigational strategies significantly impact the ability to form cognitive maps, with some individuals relying more on route-based navigation while others are better at forming place-based, map-like representations ( Weisberg & Newcombe, 2016).

Efforts to improve assessment performance, such as clarifying drawings, enhancing 3D appearance, or using physical models and animations, have shown positive results ( Cohen & Hegarty, 2012; Fisher et al., 2018; Yue, 2008). For instance, the "Spatial Configuration Task" (SCT, Burles et al., 2017) has been designed to investigate the generation of cognitive maps in a simple 3D Virtual Environment (VE). In this task, participants first become familiar with a space where objects are arranged for memorization. This task was designed to provide a quick and reliable measure of the ability to generate and utilize a mental representation of a simple virtual environment (VE), but it has never been implemented in an immersive virtual reality (VR) environment.

However, these modifications have not yet been widely adopted in the evaluation of cognitive map formation abilities ( Bartlett & Camba, 2022). VR offers several advantages over traditional 2D and desktop 3D assessments of spatial abilities, including the ability to evaluate 3D maps in a fully immersive 3D environment. Additionally, VR can incorporate sensory information related to body movement, providing an additional source of input for cognitive map formation, thereby enabling a more ecological and realistic assessment. Therefore, we propose a protocol for validating a novel VR task, the Virtual Spatial Cognition Task (VSCT). This task simulates participants' cognitive map formation abilities by requiring them to explore a virtual environment, learn spatial relationships between landmarks, and recall their positions.

Developing a spatial task that allows users to explore the environment by rotating in a movable chair without the need for forward or backward movement not only leverages several benefits associated with gaze-directed steering (GDS) but also simplifies interaction by eliminating the need for complex movement controls, thus making VR more accessible, especially for users with limited mobility or dexterity.

A significant advantage expected to feature this setup is represented by the reduced motion sickness. By restricting navigation to rotational exploration should avoid the sensory mismatch that often causes discomfort and enhances situational awareness, allowing users to freely observe their surroundings without the distraction of forward or backward movement.

Moreover, the design controls the visibility of virtual objects, requiring users to piece together information gradually, a feature shared also with the SCT.

This study aims to validate the newly developed VSCT by evaluating participants' performance on the original SCT both before and after VR exposure. We will use a between-subjects design, dividing participants into two groups to clarify the specific effects of spatial versus non-spatial cognitive demands. One group will perform the task in virtual reality, while the other will engage in a non-spatial auditory verbal task, adapted from Bacon et al. (2008), to isolate memory processes from spatial reasoning. To this end, only the first administration of the SCT (T1) will be used for correlation analyses with the VSCT, as it provides a baseline measure of spatial performance. The second administration (T2) is included solely for exploratory purposes—to investigate whether repeated exposure might lead to performance improvements and to preliminarily explore potential training effects. These exploratory findings could inform the design of future studies specifically aimed at assessing the impact of training or interventions. Establishing the VSCT’s validity is a necessary first step before we can confidently use it in such longitudinal or interventional contexts.

We will use a series of tests and tasks to validate the VSCT. We hypothesize a positive correlation between the VSCT and SCT, as both are designed to measure the same construct—namely, the ability to form cognitive maps. We also hypothesize a positive correlation between the VSCT and Backward Corsi, as working memory is a key component in the formation and maintenance of cognitive maps ( Epstein et al., 2017). Conversely, we do not expect a significant correlation between the VSCT and RAVLT. We included the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) in our study precisely to assess discriminant validity. The RAVLT measures verbal episodic memory, while the VSCT targets visuospatial configuration memory—two constructs that are theoretically and empirically distinct ( Suri et al., 2017). By including the RAVLT and confirming that it does not significantly correlate with performance on the VSCT, we provide evidence that the VSCT is not simply capturing general memory ability, but rather a more specific visuospatial memory component. This lack of correlation supports the discriminant validity of our task, helping to confirm that it measures a construct different from that assessed by standard verbal memory tasks.

Finally, to evaluate VSCT feasibility we will use the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) ( Kennedy et al., 1993).

Methods

Open science commitment

Our protocol is available on the Open Science Network, and our data will be made accessible in the near future ( https://osf.io/3dmsy/).

Participants

As the study aims to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity of VSCT, by comparing VSCT correlation with SCT to the correlation of RAVLT with SCT, an a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1 Faul et al. (2009). Assuming a moderate to large effect size (Cohen’s q = 0.4), a significance level of α = 0.05, and a desired power of 0.95, The required sample size for comparing two independent correlation coefficients using a z-test for dependent Pearson’s r was calculated as 166 participants. Taken this for granted, and bearing in mind that the data to correlate are not yielded with a paper-and-pencil questionnaire- but a virtual setting requiring training and adaptation, we weight the effect size indication with previous research using similar aims and methods.

This was the case in da Costa et al. (2022), who validated two immersive virtual reality tasks for spatial orientation using correlational and group comparison analyses. The authors reported significant associations between the virtual tasks and traditional cognitive measures, as well as successful group discrimination.

The participants represented a sample size large enough to yield statistically reliable confidence intervals. It should be noted that the study employed a between-subjects design; however, participants from the two groups were combined. In contrast, our study will correlate the two groups with two different variables.

Furthermore, He et al. (2022) employed a fully within-subjects design to validate a spatial perspective-taking task in ambulatory virtual reality, using a sample size comparable to ours. However, since within-subjects designs typically offer greater statistical power, we acknowledge that our between-subjects design may require a larger sample to achieve equivalent sensitivity. We have accounted for this by adopting a conservative effect size estimate and grounding our decision in the specific demands of VR-based testing, which introduces variability due to training and adaptation phases.

Participants will be actively recruited to participate in the intervention across various University of Bologna Campus locations. Recruitment will be facilitated through targeted advertisements and consecutive enrollment procedures to ensure diverse participant representation and data robustness.

The project will be advertised in public spaces and social platforms. Participants will be invited to make an appointment with the researchers by e-mail after the first evaluation phase. During this initial contact, the researchers will explain the purpose of the study, answer any follow-up questions, and invite participants to come to the Department of Psychology. Upon arrival at the lab, participants will be asked to sign an informed consent form and compile the personal data processing form. No identifying personal information (e.g., names, contact details, or video recordings) will be collected or stored. Participants are identified only by randomized numeric codes, and all reported results will be presented at the group level, ensuring that no individual can be identified in any publication or presentation of the data.

Informed consent

Informed consent will be obtained from all participants before participation, in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) (1964). The Bioethics Committee operating within the University of Bologna raised no concern about the study (n. 0022813 dated 2024.01.06).

Materials

Instruments

Individuals who agree to participate will be assessed online through a link to the questionnaires (via Psytoolkit and Qualtrics platform). The first evaluation will be carried out using an ad-hoc form to collect sociodemographic data and the following psychometric tests.

Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (SBSOD): The SBSOD assesses a participant’s self-reported sense of direction. The scale consists of 15 orientation-related statements (e.g. ‘I am very good at giving directions’) that participants rate on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (7). The SBSOD significantly correlates with measures of large-scale spatial skills in numerous experiments ( Hegarty et al., 2002; Ventura et al., 2013).

Backward Corsi Task: The Backward Corsi Task ( Isaacs & Vargha-Khadem, 1989; Kessels et al., 2008) is a cognitive tool designed to evaluate visuospatial working memory and attention by requiring participants to replicate sequences of block taps in reverse order.

The spatial performance of each participant will be measured using the following tasks.

Spatial Configuration Task (SCT): The Spatial Configuration Task is a quick and reliable measure of one's ability to generate and use a mental representation of the spatial configuration of different objects in a 2D virtual environment. ( Burles et al., 2017)

The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) The Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) is a widely used neuropsychological assessment that measures verbal memory and learning. In this test, participants are presented with a list of 15 words, which they must recall across multiple trials. After a delay, they are asked to recall the list again and later recognize the words from a larger list of distractor words. The test assesses various memory functions, including immediate recall, learning ability, delayed recall, and recognition memory, helping evaluate cognitive functions related to verbal learning and memory ( Peaker & Stewart, 1989).

At the end of VSCT the SSQ will be administered to assess the feasibility of the task. The SSQ is a tool used to assess the severity and types of discomfort or sickness symptoms that individuals experience when exposed to virtual environments, simulators, or similar immersive technologies. It consists of a self-report questionnaire where individuals rate the severity of various symptoms on a 4-point scale (0 = None, 1 = Slight, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Severe) ( Kennedy et al., 1993).

Virtual Spatial Configuration Task VSCT

Hardware: The task is displayed via an HTC Vive Pro Eye (display resolution of 1440 × 1600 pixels per eye and 90 Hz refresh rate) head-mounted dis-play (HMD). The HMD is equipped with an eye tracking system running at 120 Hz sampling rate and reported to achieve a spatial accuracy of 0.5° - 1.1° ( HTC Corporation, 2021; VIVE European Union (n.d.)). Each participant is tested using the following lab setups: two SteamVR base stations ("lighthouses"; Valve Corp., Bellevue, WA,USA) are set up in the lab room for positional tracking, the lab is equipped with a VR-capable desktop computer (AMD Ryzen 9 5900HX CPU, 3.30GHz, 32GB RAM, AMD Radeon™ RX 6600M GPU).

Software. The experiment is implemented in Unity using the Editor Version (version 2023.11f1).

Scene setup

To design the virtual environment, we created an empty space and selected 5 objects (a chair, a trashcan, a washer, a lamp and a plant). We chose objects that could be easily found in the house but from different rooms; this choice was made to avoid semantic facilitation or cueing in localizing the object (e.g. The table should be near the kitchen and so on) ( Lu et al., 2024).

Furthermore, we opted to use familiar household objects rather than the geometrical shapes traditionally employed in the Spatial Configuration Test (SCT). This decision was motivated by the unique capabilities of virtual reality, which enable the creation of immersive, ecologically valid scenarios. By selecting objects with high familiarity and recognizability, we aimed to reduce variability in object encoding and promote more consistent performance across participants. Additionally, projecting participants into environments that mirror real-life contexts—such as recognizing and remembering the arrangement of common objects within a room—enhanced both the ecological validity of the task and participant engagement.

After objects selection, the floor and the lighting are meticulously crafted. To ensure that no spatial cues such as sun position or shadow direction are given to the participant, we placed the sun directly above the head of the participant, selected “no shadows” as the shadow type for each object, and chose a uniform smooth grey floor. The objects were placed in a circular arrangement with equidistant spacing.

We use the created scene as a template for 10 different scenes, 5 dedicated to the training phase and 5 dedicated to the testing phase.

The virtual task

We selected three objects for each scene: two placed near each other and a third positioned on the opposite side, facing the pair. The participant's camera was placed in front of the two adjacent objects, such that the third object was located behind them, forming a triangular spatial configuration ( Figure 1b).

The location of the missing object was indicated by a circle on the floor ( Figure 1c/d), providing a visual landmark to aid participants. An interactive interface allowed participants to switch scenes by pressing "change", return to the main menu with "VSCT", and exit by pressing "exit" ( Figure 1a). Participants could explore objects around them for a maximum of 20 seconds per scene.

From the beginning of the task, participants were prompted with questions about the spatial location of objects. Each scene included a canvas displaying a question (e.g., "Which object is behind you?") with three possible choices representing the missing object. Only the two adjacent objects in front of the participant were shown ( Figure 1b). Button positions were randomized to avoid spatial response biases. Participants learned the correct answers through trial and error, gradually forming internal representations of the spatial configurations based on feedback. The task consisted of 40 such trials. For each trial, the participant’s response was recorded.

Environment exploration

Participants could rotate and inspect the environment by moving right or left, using the Unity Interaction Toolkit and custom scripts to interface with the HMD joysticks. Users’ movements are continuous and based on the participant's head direction to ensure ecological validity with proprioceptive feedback and reduce motion sickness.

Data repository

At the end of the project, the project source code will be published in a dedicated public repository on Git Hub to encourage further development and research ( https://github.com/gio-lp/VSCT).

Procedure

Participants will be assigned in a pseudo-randomized single-blinded manner to one of the two groups (Auditory Verbal (AV) vs. Virtual Reality (VR)). Both groups will be asked to perform an initial assessment of their spatial abilities using the 40-item version of SCT. In the next phase, the experimental group will be made to wear the "HTC VIVE" visor that will allow them to perform the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task in VR (VR condition); the control group will be administered the auditory verbal memory task (AV condition). Both groups will be given the SCT again at the end of the task (See Figure 2).

VR spatial task condition

Training: The participants will be placed in our virtual environment and instructed to explore the space around them in each of the scenes. In each scene, the participant will see 3 objects at a time (two in front of him and one behind him).

Testing: After the training is completed, participants will be asked to start the testing phase. This phase will last until the task is completed, namely, when the participant accurately recalls the position of the objects after three consecutive correct trials. The objects are those learned during the training phase. The participants' accuracy and reaction time will be recorded.

AV memory task condition

Administration of the RAVLT will involve several steps:

The experimenter will read the first list (List A) of 15 unrelated words at a rate of about one word per second. It's crucial to present the words in the same order and with the same pronunciation for each participant. After presenting the list, the participant will be asked to repeat back as many words as they can remember, regardless of the order. After the participant recalled as many words as possible from List A, the process will be repeated for five immediate recall trials. After each trial, the number of words correctly recalled will be recorded.

The experimenter will read a second list (List A) of 15 unrelated words (List B) to the participant and instruct them to recall as many words as possible from this list. This step is designed to interfere with the participant's ability to recall words from List A. Following the presentation of List B, the participant will be asked to recall the words from List A once again. This step assesses the individual's ability to retrieve information from memory after interference.

After a short delay in which the participant will have to do a scrambled image test (usually around 20–30 minutes), the participant will be asked to recall the words from List A once more without presenting the word list again. This step evaluates the individual's ability to retain information in memory over time.

The participant's performance will be scored based on the number of words correctly recalled or recognized during each test phase.

Plan of analysis

Independent samples t-test

An independent samples t-test will be conducted to compare the average number of hits at the SCT between the control and experimental groups. Age and sex were collected as sociodemographic variables because both have been shown to influence spatial navigation abilities in previous research ( Sneider et al., 2015). Although we did not formulate specific hypotheses regarding the effects of age or sex, these variables were included to confirm group equivalence and to control for potential confounding factors, thereby strengthening the internal validity of our findings. Moreover, to verify that the two groups do not differ significantly in these scores, independent samples t-tests will be conducted to compare the CORSI and SBSOD scores between the experimental and control groups.

Correlation analysis

We will run correlations matrix between CORSI, SBSOD, and hits at both the VSCT and SCT. This will help us understand the influence of general intelligence and working memory capacity on spatial ability and ensure that the VSCT and SCT are comparable tasks

Regarding reliability, we plan to assess internal consistency using split-half and/or Cronbach’s alpha methods for key performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, error scores), depending on distributional characteristics. In addition, we aim to conduct a test–retest reliability study in a subsample of participants to examine stability over time.

Expected results

Validation of VSCT outcomes

We expect SCT mean accuracy to be positively correlated with performance on the CORSI backward task and VSCT accuracy.

A positive correlation with SCT accuracy would validate VSCT as a measure of participants' abilities to maintain and retrieve cognitive maps based on allocentric frameworks ( Burles et al., 2017). Both SCT and VSCT require creating an allocentric cognitive map from multiple egocentric viewpoints. Therefore, we expect a positive correlation between SCT mean accuracy and spatial working memory, as measured by the Corsi backward task. Regarding reliability, based on our planned analyses, we expect to find acceptable to high internal consistency for key performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, error scores), as assessed through split-half reliability and/or Cronbach’s alpha, depending on the distributional properties of the data. Additionally, we anticipate that test–retest reliability in a subsample will demonstrate moderate to high stability over time, supporting the robustness of both the SCT and VSCT as reliable tools for assessing spatial cognition.

Discussion

The proposed study protocol aims to validate a novel Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), designed to evaluate participants' cognitive map formation abilities. This validation is crucial as it establishes the reliability of the VSCT in assessing spatial orientation skills. By requiring participants to explore a virtual environment, learn spatial relationships between landmarks, and recall their positions, the task offers a comprehensive measure of spatial cognition.

The development of the VSCT addresses a significant gap in spatial cognition research, particularly the lack of programs designed to assess higher-level spatial abilities, such as cognitive map formation, in 3D VR environments. Although some research groups have proposed VR-based spatial tests (e.g., Gehrke et al., 2018; Hartman et al., 2006), to the authors' knowledge, no specific validations of VR assessment tasks in immersive virtual environments have been conducted. Therefore, we believe it is important to address this gap and explore the opportunities that VR offers in the domain of spatial cognition assessment.

One of the innovative aspects of the VSCT is its potential application for populations with impaired movement. The task is designed to allow users to explore the environment by rotating in a movable chair, eliminating the need for forward or backward movement, making it particularly suitable for individuals with limited mobility or dexterity. This design simplifies interaction, reduces the complexity of movement controls, and enhances accessibility. Additionally, by limiting navigation to rotational exploration, the task minimizes the sensory mismatch that often leads to motion sickness, thereby improving user comfort and engagement. The VSCT's design strategically controls the visibility of virtual objects, requiring users to piece together information gradually. This approach encourages cognitive engagement and problem-solving as users integrate sequential observations to gain a comprehensive understanding of the environment. Such cognitive engagement is particularly beneficial for populations with impaired movement, as it provides a means to enhance spatial orientation and navigation skills without the need for physical locomotion. For instance, stroke survivors often experience limited mobility and spatial disorientation. The VSCT’s rotation-based exploration allows them to safely practice navigating a virtual environment. By gradually revealing objects as they turn, users strengthen spatial awareness and problem-solving skills without the need for walking or complex controls.

The task's reliance on proprioceptive feedback and vestibular system inputs significantly enhances its effectiveness in spatial learning and navigation. Unlike static 2D tasks, which fail to provide participants with sensory information from their own movements, this dynamic approach enables users to actively explore and interact with the environment. By integrating proprioceptive cues and vestibular inputs, participants receive continuous updates about their position and movements, allowing them to build and maintain accurate cognitive maps. This interactive, multi-sensory experience reflects the real-world processes of spatial encoding and navigation, underscoring the critical role of proprioceptive and vestibular feedback in enhancing the fidelity and robustness of spatial representations. In this context, it is also important to consider the applicability of this software for training spatial abilities after injury, which often involves some level of motor impairment. While previous studies have demonstrated the malleability of lower-level spatial functions, such as mental rotation and route memory, through various training interventions ( Montana et al., 2019; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994; Uttal et al., 2013), few have specifically targeted cognitive map formation. An exception is a study by McLaren-Gradinaru and colleagues (2020), which evaluated the effects of training by comparing task performance before and after training. By providing an immersive virtual environment where participants can develop and refine their spatial orientation skills, the VSCT could serve the dual purpose of assessing and improving the ability to form cognitive maps.

The translational value of the VSCT extends beyond its immediate application in cognitive training and neurorehabilitation. By providing a validated tool for assessing and improving spatial orientation skills, the VSCT has the potential to be integrated into a wide range of therapeutic and educational programs. For individuals with neurodegenerative diseases, brain injuries, or developmental disorders, the VSCT offers a novel and engaging way to enhance spatial cognition and independence. Its use in virtual reality settings also opens up possibilities for remote and home-based interventions, making it a versatile tool for widespread application.

Beyond clinical populations, the VSCT could also hold significant value for broader groups at risk of spatial difficulties. For example, healthy older adults often experience age-related declines in spatial orientation that increase the risk of disorientation and falls; the VSCT may provide an engaging and safe way to monitor and train these abilities proactively. Similarly, in educational contexts, spatial ability is closely linked to achievement in STEM disciplines. Incorporating the VSCT into training curricula could provide students with opportunities to strengthen cognitive map formation skills that underlie problem-solving in fields such as mathematics, engineering, and the natural sciences. By extending its scope to these populations, the VSCT not only serves as a rehabilitative and diagnostic tool but also as a platform with the potential to foster resilience, independence, and academic success.

Looking to the future, the VSCT could be further refined and expanded to include more complex virtual environments and tasks. Integrating advanced features such as adaptive difficulty levels, real-time feedback, and multi-sensory integration could enhance its effectiveness and user experience. Additionally, research could explore the long-term effects of regular VSCT training on spatial cognition and daily navigation skills, providing valuable insights into its therapeutic potential. Future work could also compare chair-based and ambulatory VR setups to further assess the generalizability of findings across different navigation modalities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the validation of the VSCT represents a significant advancement in spatial cognition research. By providing an accessible, engaging, and effective tool for assessing and training spatial orientation skills, the VSCT holds promise for improving the quality of life for individuals with impaired movement and other cognitive challenges. Its translational value lies in its potential to be integrated into diverse therapeutic and educational programs, paving the way for innovative interventions and future research in the field.

Declarations

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Bologna (approval number: n 0022813, dated 2024.01.06) and complies with the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (1964).

Consent to participate

Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants involved in this study. Ethical approval has already been granted by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Bologna under Protocol No. [0022813].

Participants will be provided with a detailed consent form outlining the study's objectives, procedures, potential risks, and their rights, including the right to withdraw at any time without consequences.

Furthermore, the full text of the informed consent document will be made available in the Extended Data to ensure transparency and adherence to ethical guidelines.

Consent for publication

Not applicable, as this is a study protocol and does not include individual data or identifiable information.

Funding Statement

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (MAIA 951910). Multifunctional Adaptive and Interactive AI system for acting in multiple context awarded to Professor Alessia Tessari, and by BIR2024 funds from the Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, awarded to Dr. Giovanni Ottoboni

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

[version 3; peer review: 3 approved, 4 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Availability of data and materials

No data associated with this article.

The data from the future experiment will be made available in accordance with open science principles. The research protocol has been drafted in the OSF repository with the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3DMSY ( Umiltà et al., 2024). All the materials, including study questionnaires, informed consent and supplementary data, are also published at this DOI.

Extended data

Code availability

At the end of the project, the project source code will be published in a dedicated public repository on Git Hub to encourage further development and research ( https://github.com/gio-lp/VSCT). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Authors' contributions

A.M.U. and A.T conceptualized the study design. G.L.P. and F.B. contributed to task development and VR implementation. G.L.P and A.M.U conducted the power analysis, A. T. and G.O. prepared the funding applications. All authors contributed to the manuscript drafting and approved the final version. A.M.U. and G.L.P. are joint first authors, having contributed equally to this work. We used ChatGPT ( OpenAI, 2025) to assist with language editing and refinement. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors.

References

Aguirre GK, D'Esposito E: Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 9):1613–1628. 10.1093/brain/122.9.1613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Bacon AM, Handley SJ, Dennis I, et al. : Reasoning strategies: the role of working memory and verbal-spatial ability. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2008;20(6):1065–1086. 10.1080/09541440701807559 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Bartlett KA, Camba JD: An argument for visualization technologies in spatial skills assessment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). LNCS,2022;13328:30–39. 10.1007/978-3-031-05657-4_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Bayramova R, Valori I, McKenna-Plumley PE, et al. : The role of vision and proprioception in self-motion encoding: an Immersive Virtual Reality study. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021;83(7):2865–2878. 10.3758/s13414-021-02344-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brooks JX, Cullen KE: Early vestibular processing does not discriminate active from passive self-motion if there is a discrepancy between predicted and actual proprioceptive feedback. J Neurophysiol. 2014;111(12):2465–2478. 10.1152/jn.00600.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Burles CF: The development of a practical measure of environmental-scale spatial ability: the spatial configuration task. University of calgary PRISM repository.2014. 10.11575/PRISM/28057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Burles F, Slone E, Iaria G: Dorso-medial and ventro-lateral functional specialization of the human retrosplenial complex in spatial updating and orienting. Brain Struct Funct. 2017;222(3):1481–1493. 10.1007/s00429-016-1288-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Casale J, Browne T, Murray IV, et al. : Physiology, vestibular system. J Learn Disabil. 2023;7(2):41–42. [Google Scholar]
Chance SS, Gaunet F, Beall AC, et al. : Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: the contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 1998;7(2):168–178. 10.1162/105474698565659 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Cohen CA, Hegarty M: Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: a new spatial thinking test. Learn Individ Differ. 2012;22(6):868–874. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Cullen KE, Zobeiri OA: Proprioception and the predictive sensing of active self-motion. Curr Opin Physiol. 2021;20:29–38. 10.1016/j.cophys.2020.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
da Costa RQM, Pompeu JE, Moretto E, et al. : Two immersive virtual reality tasks for the assessment of spatial orientation in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: concurrent validity, group comparison, and accuracy results. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2022;28(5):460–472. 10.1017/S1355617721000655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ehinger BV, Fischer P, Gert AL, et al. : Kinesthetic and vestibular information modulate alpha activity during spatial navigation: a mobile EEG study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8(1):71. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ehtemam F, Forbes PA, Schouten AC, et al. : Galvanic vestibular stimulation elicits consistent head-neck motion in seated subjects. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(7):1978–1984. 10.1109/TBME.2012.2195178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Epstein RA, Patai EZ, Julian JB, et al. : The cognitive map in humans: spatial navigation and beyond. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20(11):1504–1513. 10.1038/nn.4656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. : Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Fetsch CR, Turner AH, DeAngelis GC, et al. : Dynamic reweighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. J Neurosci. 2009;29(49):15601–15612. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2574-09.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Fisher ML, Meredith T, Gray M: Sex differences in mental rotation ability are a consequence of procedure and artificiality of stimuli. Evol Psychol Sci. 2018;4(2):124–133. 10.1007/s40806-017-0120-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Gehrke L, Iversen JR, Makeig S, et al. : The Invisible Maze Task (IMT): interactive exploration of sparse virtual environments to investigate action-driven formation of spatial representations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). LNAI,2018;11034:293–310. 10.1007/978-3-319-96385-3_20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hartman NW, Connolly PE, Gilger JW, et al. : Virtual Reality-Based spatial skills assessment and its role in computer graphics education. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators Program on - SIGGRAPH ’ 06. 2006;46. 10.1145/1179295.1179342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
He C, Chrastil ER, Hegarty M: A new psychometric task measuring spatial perspective taking in ambulatory Virtual Reality. Front Virtual Real. 2022;3: 971502. 10.3389/frvir.2022.971502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hegarty M, Montello DR, Richardson AE, et al. : Spatial abilities at different scales: individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence. 2006;34(2):151–176. 10.1016/J.INTELL.2005.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, et al. : Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence. 2002;30(5):425–447. 10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00116-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
HTC Corporation : VIVE Pro Eye specifications. 2021. Reference Source
Isaacs EB, Vargha-Khadem F: Differential course of development of spatial and verbal memory span: a normative study. Br J Dev Psychol. 1989;7(4):377–380. 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00814.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Ivanenko YP, Viaud-Delmon I, Sémont A, et al. : Eye movements during torso rotations in labyrinthine-defective subjects. J Vestib Res. 1999;9(6):401–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jansen P: The dissociation of small- and large-scale spatial abilities in school-age children. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;109(2):357–361. 10.2466/PMS.109.2.357-361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, et al. : Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying Simulator Sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1993;3(3):203–220. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Kessels RPC, van den Berg E, Ruis C, et al. : The backward span of the corsi block-tapping task and its association with the WAIS-III digit span. Assessment. 2008;15(4):426–434. 10.1177/1073191108315611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Linn MC, Petersen AC: Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev. 1985;56(6):1479–98. 10.2307/1130467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lu X, Zhu MJH, Risko EF: Semantic partitioning facilitates memory for object location through category-partition cueing. Memory. 2024;32(3):339–357. 10.1080/09658211.2024.2319363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
McLaren-Gradinaru M, Burles F, Dhillon I, et al. : A novel training program to improve human spatial orientation: preliminary findings. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:5. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Montana JI, Tuena C, Serino S, et al. : Neurorehabilitation of spatial memory using Virtual Environments: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10): 1516. 10.3390/JCM8101516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nardini M, Jones P, Bedford R, et al. : Development of cue integration in human navigation. Curr Biol. 2008;18(9):689–693. 10.1016/J.CUB.2008.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
OpenAI : ChatGPT [Large language model].2025. Reference Source
O’keefe J, Nadel L: Précis of O’Keefe & Nadel’s The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Behav Brain Sci. 1979;2(4):487–494. 10.1017/S0140525X00063949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Peaker A, Stewart LE: Rey’s auditory verbal learning test — a review. In: Developments in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. Springer US,1989;219–236. 10.1007/978-1-4757-9996-5_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Pizlo Z: 3D Shape: its unique place in visual perception. The MIT Press,2008. 10.7551/mitpress/7705.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Sheeran WM, Ahmed OJ: The neural circuitry supporting successful spatial navigation despite variable movement speeds. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;108:821–833. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Sneider JT, Hamilton DA, Cohen-Gilbert JE, et al. : Sex differences in spatial navigation and perception in human adolescents and emerging adults. Behav Processes. 2015;111:42–50. 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.11.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Souman JL, Frissen I, Sreenivasa MN, et al. : Walking straight into circles. Curr Biol. 2009;19(18):1538–42. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield PM: Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1994;15(1):13–32. 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Suri S, Topiwala A, Filippini N, et al. : Distinct resting-state functional connections associated with episodic and visuospatial memory in older adults. Neuroimage. 2017;159:122–130. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tolman TC: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev. 1948;55(4):189–208. 10.1037/h0061626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Umiltà AM: Training human topographical orientation in a virtual environment: the behavioural and neurological mechanisms. (Doctoral thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). University of Calgary,2021. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
Umiltà AM, Li Pira G, Tessari A, et al. : Validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): a novel virtual reality-based tool for assessing cognitive map formation abilities.2024. 10.17605/OSF.IO/3DMSY [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Uttal DH, Meadow NG, Tipton E, et al. : The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(2):352–402. 10.1037/a0028446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ventura M, Shute V, Wright T, et al. : An investigation of the validity of the Virtual Spatial Navigation Assessment. Front Psychol. 2013;4:852. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
VIVE European Union: Discover virtual reality beyond imagination. (n.d.); Retrieved April 18, 2025. Reference Source
Weisberg SM, Newcombe NS: How do (some) people make a cognitive map? Routes, places, and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2016;42(5):768–785. 10.1037/xlm0000200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Yue J: Spatial visualization by realistic 3D views. Engineering Design Graphics Journal. 2008;72(1):28–38. 10.18260/1-2--1619 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Open Res Eur. 2025 Nov 6. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.23299.r63207

Reviewer response for version 3

Jozsef Katona ^1,²

I accept the paper in the current form.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Human-computer interaction; cognitive psychology; software engineering.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Nov 6. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.23299.r63203

Reviewer response for version 3

Alastair D Smith ¹

The authors have broadly addressed my previous comments adequately. If I were honest, I would still prefer a little more on the original SCT (so that one can get a better grasp of the similarities and differences between the variants, and how performance has previously related to other measures) and perhaps a little less on the multiplicity of potential applications of the VSCT if successfully validated. However, I am but one voice, and the overarching aims and objectives seem fine to me.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Oct 6. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21974.r54390

Reviewer response for version 2

Laura Miola ¹

I would like to thank the authors for their responses to my questions and concerns. The clarifications provided have been valuable, and I think that this revised protocol can be considered in the next stage of the process.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition, individual differences, environmental psychology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Oct 1. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21974.r60516

Reviewer response for version 2

Meytal Wilf ¹

Open Science Europe review:

The authors present a proposal for a virtual adaptation of the ‘spatial configuration task’. The new paradigm will present a more immersive and ecological measure of spatial cognition, with potential implementations for persons with restricted mobility. The protocol aims to validate their new paradigm on a group of healthy individuals and compare it to more conventional tests for spatial cognition. Although the idea and paradigm are solid and potentially useful, I have comments about the design and about the clarity and organization of the text. I detail my comments below, according to the chronological order of the different sections:

Abstract:

Why do the authors assume that rotational movement will cause less cyber sickness the other types of locomotion? Is this corroborated by previous studies?

Introduction:

Still missing in the description of the standard SCT – what is the task participants need to perform after memorizing the objects?
Also please clarify - Is the conventional SCT 2D or 3D (or maybe a 3D simulated on a 3D screen)? From the description in the introduction, it appears that it is already 3D and virtual. If so, not clear what immersive VR adds to this.
Relatedly – the authors list “the ability to evaluate 3D maps in a fully immersive 3D environment” as one of the benefits of VR. Please write it more specifically – does that refer to the added depth dimension? The isolation from the external environment? A switch from allocentric to egocentric perspective?
The authors refer to SCT as ‘spatial configuration task’, and then the VSCT is referred to as ‘virtual Spatial Cognition Task’. If it is a VR version of the same task, I suggest keeping the same naming, as it is also more specific (i.e., ‘virtual spatial configuration task’).
Similarly to the abstract – will rotational movements cause less dizziness than actual locomotion? Are there studies to corroborate this assumption? If there is no delay between the movement and the change in visual inputs (like is the case in most new VR devices), then no extra motion sickness is expected by walking. It might be that rotating the head is causing more risk of VR-related motion sickness.
The authors state the ‘the design controls the visibility of virtual objects’, as in the SCT. Please either clarify how this is implemented (also in the SCT), or move this sentence to the methods after the detailed description of the task.
Last paragraph in page 4 – from the first sentence it is not clear what is the goal of running the SCT pre and post the VSCT. Why is it important for validation? Are there learning processes expected? Although it is outlined at the end of the paragraph, the first sentence should be rephrased for consistency (as only the pre SCT is used for the validation).
Please describe in a few words the auditory verbal task in the same paragraph – does it have a memory component?
In the last paragraph of the introduction the authors lay out their predications. Since there are readers who might not be familiar with the Corsi and the RAVLT tasks, please add a short description of each of the tasks before laying out the predictions.
Also related to predictions – why do the authors assume there will be no correlation between VSCT and RAVLT? From what I understand in their description of the task, participants will be asked to recall a list of objects in VSCT, which requires some similar capabilities as those utilized in RAVLT.

Methods:

In the participants section, the authors write that “Participants will be actively recruited to participate in the intervention”. This proposed study is a validation and not an intervention.
When describing SCT, please outline what is the task exactly, and not only what is its purpose. Fully understanding this task is central to understanding the study.
In the ‘scene setup’ section, how were the 10 different scenes different from each other? By the identity of the objects? By their location? This is also the first time that the authors state there is a training phase and a testing phase. At this point it is not clear why training is needed for the validation study.
‘the virtual task’ section is hard to follow, the second paragraph seems a bit out of place. Please switch between the 2 ^nd and 3 ^rd paragraphs for clarity.
a few clarification questions:
- Did the 3 ^rd object actually appear in each trial? Or only a circle marking its position?
- What is the ‘home screen’? why should participants want to change scenes or go back to the home screen? They can skip trials?
- Not clear if participants are allowed the full environment with the 5 objects before the experiment begins.
Missing a description of the ‘auditory verbal’ task, along with an explanation of why this was chosen as control. Or does it refer to the RAVLT task? If so, please unify the terminology and call it RAVLT throughout the text.
In Figure 2 appears the term ‘scrambled images’ but is not explained in the text.
Also in figure 2 – not clear why the main session ranges from 10-45 minutes.
In general – please unify terminology. Is “VR spatial task condition” equal to VSCT? It will help avoid confusion if it is named the same throughout the text.
The term ‘training’ is a bit misleading, as, to my understanding, participants are not trained in performing the task itself. It should be named ‘encoding/exploration phase’.
“when the participant accurately recalls the position of the objects after three consecutive correct trials” – this part is not clear, especially that participants can skip trials/see the correct response if they answered incorrectly. The whole outline of how a session/trial takes place from start to finish should be explained more clearly. The current division between setup and procedure makes it less clear. Please provide a united paragraph that details what the participants experiences in each trial from start to finish.
Relatedly, if will help to reorganized figure 1 to show the sequence of events in the order participants experience them. I would even suggest to add titles on top of each figure such as “encoding phase”, “scene test trial’, “object recall task”…

Plan of analysis:

“This will help us understand the influence of general intelligence and working memory capacity” - Which of the tests measures general intelligence? They all seem to have a memory component.

General comment about the design:

How do the researchers plan to address the issue of interindividual variability? Comparing performance between two independent groups entails the risk that the individual abilities of participants in each group will differ a-priori. In such tasks that rely on fluid intelligence and specific cognitive abilities these differences might be more pronounced. Why not run the two tasks on the same participants? It might also require less participants overall. It seems like the design was meant for and interventional study more than for a validation study (pre-post design, two groups with alternative treatment). Either explain that this is a future aim or consider modifying the design to fit a validation study.
I would also suggest to document ‘years of education’ for the participants, as those were shown to correlate with cognitive tasks in some cases.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

VR, Neuropsychological testing. fMRI, eye tracking

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Sep 17. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21974.r59697

Reviewer response for version 2

Jozsef Katona ^1,²

The manuscript presents a pre-protocol for the validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), a novel virtual reality–based assessment tool aimed at measuring cognitive map formation abilities. Overall, the study addresses a timely and relevant gap in the field of spatial cognition research by attempting to move beyond traditional 2D assessments toward more ecologically valid immersive environments. The rationale for the study is clearly described, and the introduction provides a thorough theoretical background, situating the VSCT within the broader literature on spatial cognition, proprioceptive feedback, vestibular inputs, and the distinction between allocentric and egocentric navigation strategies. The authors convincingly argue that current methods fail to capture the multisensory, embodied nature of spatial learning, and they highlight how VR technology offers a compelling solution. This conceptual contribution is valuable and underscores the potential significance of the work.

Despite these strengths, there are several issues that warrant further clarification and improvement. The study design, while innovative, raises some concerns. The decision to compare the VSCT with a non-spatial auditory verbal task rather than directly with the conventional Spatial Configuration Task (SCT) may limit the interpretability of the results. Although the manuscript justifies the choice by pointing to discriminant validity, omitting a direct within- or between-subject comparison between SCT and VSCT weakens the validation effort. Without such a comparison, it will be difficult to determine whether VR truly offers added value or merely represents a different modality of task presentation. A stronger design might involve a factorial approach in which SCT and VSCT are administered across conditions, allowing both convergent and discriminant validity to be assessed more directly.

The sample size justification is commendable in its detail, particularly the use of a priori power analysis with conservative effect size assumptions. Nevertheless, the between-subjects design may be underpowered relative to the ambitious set of analyses proposed, especially given the variability inherent in VR-based testing. A discussion of how the authors plan to address potential attrition or incomplete data would strengthen the methodological section. Moreover, while demographic controls such as age and sex are mentioned, other individual differences known to affect VR performance—such as susceptibility to simulator sickness or prior gaming/VR experience—are not addressed in sufficient detail. Including such covariates could improve the robustness of the analyses.

The description of the virtual environment is rich and detailed, and the authors’ decision to use ecologically valid household objects rather than abstract geometric figures is well motivated. This choice enhances ecological validity and participant engagement. However, it remains an open question whether the simplicity of the environments and the restriction of movement to rotational exploration are sufficient to induce the kind of cognitive map formation observed in more naturalistic navigation scenarios. While the authors argue that limiting translational movement reduces motion sickness and enhances accessibility for participants with mobility impairments, there is a trade-off in terms of ecological realism. It would be important to discuss whether this compromise could limit the generalizability of findings, particularly in applications beyond clinical or mobility-impaired populations.

The planned statistical analyses, which include correlation matrices, t-tests, and reliability estimates, appear methodologically sound, yet they may not fully capture the complexity of the hypotheses. A simple independent-samples t-test may be insufficient to examine the interactions among group, task, and performance metrics. More advanced statistical models, such as mixed-design ANOVAs or multilevel modeling, might be better suited to handle the nested and repeated nature of the data. This would also allow the authors to assess whether learning curves or trial-by-trial performance trajectories differ systematically between VR and control groups, which would provide richer insights into the cognitive processes engaged by the VSCT.

From a theoretical standpoint, the manuscript could benefit from a deeper discussion of how allocentric and egocentric strategies will be evaluated within the task. While the background section thoroughly reviews these concepts, the experimental design does not include a clear operationalization or manipulation of perspective-taking strategies. If the VSCT aims to advance understanding of cognitive map formation, it would be crucial to specify how the protocol disentangles the contributions of allocentric versus egocentric navigation. Similarly, the issue of immersiveness, which is central to VR research, is not systematically addressed. Established frameworks for measuring presence, such as Slater’s concepts of place illusion and plausibility, could be incorporated both as self-report measures and as explanatory variables in the analyses, thereby enriching the interpretation of the results.

The potential applications of the VSCT are well described, particularly in the domains of neurorehabilitation and training for individuals with impaired mobility. The discussion convincingly positions the task as both an assessment tool and a potential intervention platform. However, the translational implications could be expanded further by considering broader populations, such as healthy older adults at risk of spatial disorientation, or educational contexts where spatial ability is linked to STEM achievement. Integrating these perspectives would highlight the broader societal relevance of the project.

In terms of presentation, the manuscript is generally well written and clearly structured, with a commendable commitment to open science practices, including preregistration and data-sharing plans. Minor issues of clarity remain, particularly in distinguishing the objectives of the first and second administrations of the SCT, and in explaining how trial-by-trial feedback in the VR environment might affect learning processes relative to baseline SCT performance. These clarifications would help readers understand how the authors plan to separate task-specific effects from practice or training effects.

In conclusion, the proposed validation of the VSCT represents a promising and original contribution to spatial cognition research. The strengths of the work lie in its innovative use of VR technology, its attention to ecological validity, and its potential clinical applications. At the same time, the study would benefit from a more rigorous validation design that directly compares the VSCT with established measures, a more sophisticated analytic strategy, and an explicit operationalization of allocentric and egocentric strategies. Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the scientific impact of the work and provide a more compelling case for the VSCT as a valid and useful tool in both research and applied settings.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Human-computer interaction; cognitive psychology; software engineering.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Sep 30.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. At this stage of our research, our primary aim is to validate the effectiveness of the VSCT as an assessment tool for spatial abilities, using the SCT as the benchmark (as specified in the text). We fully agree that a factorial design directly comparing SCT and VSCT across conditions would provide a stronger framework to assess the experimental task, as well as the potential added value of VR. However, a systematic investigation of the benefits of virtual reality in training spatial abilities goes beyond the scope of the present study. Such an evaluation is planned as a next step in our research program, once the validity of the VSCT assessment has been firmly established.

The sample size justification is commendable in its detail, particularly the use of a priori power

analysis with conservative effect size assumptions. Nevertheless, the between-subjects design may be underpowered relative to the ambitious set of analyses proposed, especially given the variability inherent in VR-based testing. A discussion of how the authors plan to address potential attrition or incomplete data would strengthen the methodological section. Moreover, while demographic controls such as age and sex are mentioned, other individual differences known to affect VR performance—such as susceptibility to simulator sickness or prior gaming/VR experience—are not addressed in sufficient detail. Including such covariates could improve the robustness of the analyses.

Thank you for this valuable feedback. While we recognize the concern that the proposed between-subjects design may be underpowered for the full range of planned analyses, we respectfully believe that our target sample size of N = 166 is sufficient. This estimate is based on a conservative a priori power analysis, which accounts for the variability typically observed in VR-based tasks. Moreover, we have revised the manuscript to address these concerns. Specifically, we added the following statement to the methodological section: “Attrition and incomplete data will be addressed through oversampling to compensate for potential dropouts, and by implementing standardized training and familiarization procedures to reduce task-related discontinuation. Participants who withdraw or produce incomplete data will be documented, and their exclusion will be transparently reported.” In addition, we would like to highlight that we included the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) as a measure to assess individual differences in susceptibility to simulator sickness, thereby allowing us to account for this factor in our analyses.

We acknowledge the trade-off inherent in our design and are aware of the potential limitations in statistical power. However, we consider it safe to assume that cognitive map formation is reliably triggered in our paradigm, as the task is based on the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT; Ford et al., 2017), which has already been shown to assess this ability effectively with no movement and only simple geometrical shapes.

We agree that more advanced statistical models could be highly informative for exploring learning curves and trial-by-trial trajectories. However, at this stage, our primary focus is not on evaluating between-group performance, but rather on validating the VSCT as a tool. On this basis, we have planned for future work to compare the VSCT with an auditory verbal task, which as of now serve as a divergent validity measure. We have now modified the manuscript accordingly:

Clarification on paragraph heading : We changed the heading of the paragraph that may have generated confusion (from “Correlation analysis and t-test” to “Correlation analysis”) to better reflect its content and avoid misinterpretation.
Statistical analysis : We clarify that our intention is not to analyze pre- vs post-training changes, but rather to ensure that the two groups do not differ significantly on relevant baseline scores. For this purpose, independent-samples t-tests are sufficient and appropriate.

We appreciate the suggestion to include an evaluation of the immersiveness of the VR environment. However, the main aim of our study is not to compare levels of immersiveness, but rather to investigate 2D vs. 3D approaches to the assessment of spatial memory, as highlighted in the manuscript. In particular, VR allows not only the evaluation of 3D maps in a fully immersive environment, but also the incorporation of sensorimotor feedback related to body movement, which provides an additional source of input for cognitive map formation and enables a more ecological and realistic assessment " VR offers several advantages over traditional 2D and desktop 3D assessments of spatial abilities, including the ability to evaluate 3D maps in a fully immersive 3D environment. Additionally, VR can incorporate sensory information related to body movement, providing an additional source of input for cognitive map formation, thereby enabling a more ecological and realistic assessment. Therefore, we propose a protocol for validating a novel VR task, the Virtual Spatial Cognition Task (VSCT). This task simulates participants' cognitive map formation abilities by requiring them to explore a virtual environment, learn spatial relationships between landmarks, and recall their positions." Given this theoretical rationale and the current experimental design, we believe that adding a questionnaire on immersiveness would not be essential, as we do not formulate specific hypotheses regarding immersivity and it is not the primary focus of the study. Nevertheless, after the evaluation of the present study, we agree that incorporating an assessment of immersiveness could be a valuable addition for future investigations.

We appreciate this valuable suggestion. As recommended, we expanded the discussion section to consider broader populations beyond clinical groups. “Beyond clinical populations, the VSCT could also hold significant value for broader groups at risk of spatial difficulties. For example, healthy older adults often experience age-related declines in spatial orientation that increase the risk of disorientation and falls; the VSCT may provide an engaging and safe way to monitor and train these abilities proactively. Similarly, in educational contexts, spatial ability is closely linked to achievement in STEM disciplines. Incorporating the VSCT into training curricula could provide students with opportunities to strengthen cognitive map formation skills that underlie problem-solving in fields such as mathematics, engineering, and the natural sciences. By extending its scope to these populations, the VSCT not only serves as a rehabilitative and diagnostic tool but also as a platform with the potential to foster resilience, independence, and academic success”. Specifically, we now highlight the potential applications of the VSCT for healthy older adults at risk of spatial disorientation, as well as for educational contexts where spatial ability is linked to STEM achievement. This addition emphasizes the broader societal relevance of the project and positions the VSCT as both a rehabilitative/diagnostic tool and a platform with potential benefits for resilience, independence, and academic success.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Sep 3. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21974.r55020

Reviewer response for version 2

Marta Matamala-Gomez ¹

The present study aims to compare the conventional Spatial Configuration task (SCT) with a Virtual SCT conducted in a virtual reality environment. However, in the present study, the authors decided to conduct a between-subjects study comparing the virtual SCT with a non-spatial auditory verbal task.

In my opinion, since this task in virtual reality has not yet been validated, the authors should focus on comparing the conventional Spatial Configuration Task with the one conducted in virtual reality. In this way, the authors can demonstrate why or what the benefits of using VR systems are when conducting the SCT.

Figure 1. shows a pictorial representation of the supposed VR environment to be used. I think that the authors would benefit from representing more realistic (home-based) VR environments like a living room, a kitchen... in which the participants can select some objects that are used to be placed in such environments.

The authors talk about differences when conducting the SCT from an egocentric or allocentric view (where they are placed in relation to the objects). However, they do not specify any comparison or test between the two perspectives in their experimental design.

I would like to suggest the following modification in their experimental timeline: I would compare VR SCTask vs. Conventional SCTask. Then, I will compare the ego vs. allocentric point of view in the two groups.

The experimental design I propose is a 2x2 between-subjects design, with two main groups: VR SCT vs. Non-VR SCT, and 2 conditions in each group: Egocentric vs. Allocentric view.

Did the authors think of adding some evaluation of the immersiveness of the VR environment and how this can influence or correlate with the results when conducting the SCTask? Here, I give you some references to check how to evaluate it: Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557.

The authors should add more relevant bibliography using immersive VR to improve spatial memory and cognitive maps. Here, I give you some references:

Refer 1 to 3

Also, there are other studies in VR showing differences between the allocentric and egocentric points of view in VR:

Refer 4 to 7

In the results section, the authors should show if there is an impact of being immersed in aVR environment when conducting the SCTask, and which is the impact of egocentric or allocentric perspectives is when conducting the SCT on spatial memory.

Finally, the authors should discuss which is the added value of using VR systems to improve spatial memory compared to conventional techniques.

In the analysis section, the authors can use an ANOVA two-factor or other statistical test, more complete than a t-test, which is a very simple test mainly used to assess pre-post training changes.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Cognitive neuroscience, virtual reality, virtual embodiment, motor learning, pain perception

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

References

1. : Neurorehabilitation of Spatial Memory Using Virtual Environments: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine .2019;8(10) : 10.3390/jcm8101516 10.3390/jcm8101516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. : How different spatial representations interact in virtual environments: the role of mental frame syncing. Cognitive Processing .2015;16(2) : 10.1007/s10339-015-0646-4 191-201 10.1007/s10339-015-0646-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. : Disentangling the Contribution of Spatial Reference Frames to Executive Functioning in Healthy and Pathological Aging: An Experimental Study with Virtual Reality. Sensors .2018;18(6) : 10.3390/s18061783 10.3390/s18061783 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4. : Egocentric and Allocentric Spatial Memory for Body Parts: A Virtual Reality Study. Journal of Cognition .2024;7(1) : 10.5334/joc.357 10.5334/joc.357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. : Detecting early egocentric and allocentric impairments deficits in Alzheimerâ€™s disease: an experimental study with virtual reality. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience .2015;7: 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00088 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. : The effect of visual perspective on episodic memory in aging: A virtual reality study. Consciousness and Cognition .2023;116: 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103603 10.1016/j.concog.2023.103603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7. : Do not get lost in translation: The role of egocentric heading in spatial orientation. Neuroscience Letters .2015;602: 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.06.057 84-88 10.1016/j.neulet.2015.06.057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Open Res Eur. 2025 Sep 30.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

Thank you for your comment. As we explain in the text, “We will run correlations matrix between CORSI, SBSOD, and hits at both the VSCT and SCT. This will help us understand the influence of general intelligence and working memory capacity on spatial ability and ensure that the VSCT and SCT are comparable tasks.” Therefore, we have indeed planned a comparison between the two tasks to ensure their comparability and to assess the specific benefits of implementing the SCT in virtual reality.

While we agree that a more realistic home-based VR environment (e.g., living room, kitchen) could be visually engaging, such settings would introduce too many spatial reference points. This would reduce the task’s ability to isolate spatial memory and configuration skills. For this reason, we decided to keep only the objects themselves in the environment and not include any additional points of reference.

Thank you for this observation. In our design, as in real life, egocentric and allocentric strategies are always intermixed. The task is presented in first person and thus provides only an egocentric view (to avoid confusion, the bird’s-eye view shown in the figure, is included only to illustrate the layout of the environment). From this egocentric perspective, participants must extrapolate an allocentric cognitive map in order to efficiently complete the task. Our aim is not to directly compare egocentric and allocentric strategies, but rather, as highlighted in the text, to compare the VSCT with the SCT.

The experimental design I propose is a 2x2 between-subjects design, with two main groups: VR SCT vs. Non-VR SCT, and 2 conditions in each group: Egocentric vs. Allocentric view.

We carefully considered your suggestions and discussed them thoroughly among the author team. While we greatly value your input, we believe that some of your proposed modifications are not fully applicable to the specific aims and design of the present protocol. As you may have seen from the previous review rounds, the manuscript has already undergone substantial revision and clarification, and data collection has now begun following the initial feedback received. At this stage, extensive structural changes would not be feasible without altering the scope and preregistered methodology of the study. In particular, regarding your request to include egocentric versus allocentric conditions: we fear there may have been a misunderstanding. The distinction between egocentric and allocentric strategies is already discussed in the theoretical background (see Strategies of spatial orientation and navigation paragraph). However, in our design it is treated as a theoretical framework guiding the rationale, not as an experimental factor to be manipulated. Introducing it as an independent variable at this stage would shift the study away from its primary objective—namely, validating the VSCT through convergent and discriminant validity analyses. We agree that systematically testing egocentric versus allocentric perspectives would be an excellent direction for future experimental work, especially in the context of training, but it goes beyond the present validation study. We hope this clarifies our methodological choices and we remain very grateful for your constructive engagement with our work.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549-3557.

We appreciate the suggestion to include an evaluation of the immersiveness of the VR environment and acknowledge the relevance of work such as Slater (2009). However, the main aim of our study is not to compare levels of immersiveness, but rather to investigate 2D vs. 3D approaches to the assessment of spatial memory, as highlighted in the manuscript. In particular, VR allows not only the evaluation of 3D maps in a fully immersive environment, but also the incorporation of sensorimotor feedback related to body movement, which provides an additional source of input for cognitive map formation and enables a more ecological and realistic assessment " VR offers several advantages over traditional 2D and desktop 3D assessments of spatial abilities, including the ability to evaluate 3D maps in a fully immersive 3D environment. Additionally, VR can incorporate sensory information related to body movement, providing an additional source of input for cognitive map formation, thereby enabling a more ecological and realistic assessment. Therefore, we propose a protocol for validating a novel VR task, the Virtual Spatial Cognition Task (VSCT). This task simulates participants' cognitive map formation abilities by requiring them to explore a virtual environment, learn spatial relationships between landmarks, and recall their positions." Given this theoretical rationale and the current experimental design, we believe that adding a questionnaire on immersiveness would not be essential, as we do not formulate specific hypotheses regarding immersivity and it is not the primary focus of the study. Nevertheless, after the evaluation of the present study, we agree that incorporating an assessment of immersiveness could be a valuable addition for future investigations.

The authors should add more relevant bibliography using immersive VR to improve spatial memory and cognitive maps. Here, I give you some references:

Refer 1 to 3

Also, there are other studies in VR showing differences between the allocentric and egocentric points of view in VR:

Refer 4 to 7

Finally, the authors should discuss which is the added value of using VR systems to improve spatial memory compared to conventional techniques.

In the analysis section, the authors can use an ANOVA two-factor or other statistical test, more complete than a t-test, which is a very simple test mainly used to assess pre-post training changes. We have now modified the manuscript accordingly:

Clarification on paragraph heading : We changed the heading of the paragraph that could have generated some confusion (from “ Correlation analysis and t-test” to “ Correlation analysis”), in order to better reflect its content and avoid misinterpretation.
Statistical analysis : We would like to clarify that our intention is not to analyze pre- vs post-training changes, but rather to ensure that the two groups do not differ significantly in the relevant baseline scores. For this purpose, we plan to use independent t-tests, which are appropriate for this specific aim.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Jun 9. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21974.r54387

Reviewer response for version 2

Simon Lhuillier ¹

I would like to thank the authors for their willingness to respond to the reviewers as best they could and for the modifications they made to their manuscript as a result. Although the methodological choices made for this article still seem questionable to me, I also admit that this evaluation may stem from a difference of field or practice. Taking this into account, as well as the opinions of my colleagues and the scope of the article as defended by the authors, I am willing to align myself with a relatively favourable opinion.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition, spatial representations, virtual reality, spatial and temporal cognitive interactions, embodied and situated cognition

Open Res Eur. 2025 Mar 21. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21031.r51677

Reviewer response for version 1

Alastair D Smith ¹

The study protocol outlines a plan for validating an immersive virtual reality variant of the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT), a behavioural measure designed to provide an insight into the construction of cognitive maps. The authors plan to conduct sessions based upon administration of the original SCT, to be followed by the VR equivalent (VSCT), and then a repeat administration of the SCT. Participants will also complete the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and backward Corsi blocks, and the key predictions are that 1) SCT performance will correlate with VSCT performance (thus validating the immersive variant), and 2) that both SCT tasks will correlate with Corsi performance (supporting a proposed relationship between working memory and cognitive map construction).

The broad ideas here are interesting, and the aim to validate a task in VR makes an awful lot of sense. I am particularly sensitive to discussion of the role that idiothetic information might play in the large-scale immersive version, as this is an important dialogue in the current literature. That said, I do feel that the protocol raises more questions than it perhaps answers. I shall summarise my key thoughts here, in no particular order:

1. The methodological detail is somewhat sparse for the key tasks, the SCT being particularly difficult to follow.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition; Neuropsychology; Development; Ageing; Virtual Reality

Open Res Eur. 2025 Apr 26.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

1. The methodological detail is somewhat sparse for the key tasks, the SCT being particularly difficult to follow. Thank you for your comment. While we acknowledge that the description of the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT) is brief, our primary focus in this manuscript is the development and validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT). The SCT has been thoroughly described and validated in the referenced publication (Burles et al., 2017), which we cite for readers seeking detailed methodological information. Given the scope of this study, we chose not to include redundant details and instead directed our attention to the novel aspects of the VSCT.

2. Similarly, the predictions are rather Spartan, and seem to focus solely on a small number of intercorrelations. The tasks additional to SCT, VSCT, and Corsi are not mentioned at all in the ‘expected results’ section which, in the first instance, leads one to wonder why they have been included. What exactly does the SCT tell us about cognitive maps, and how they might differ between individuals? Granularity would really help here. We recognize that the original Expected Results section was concise and primarily centered on predicted intercorrelations. However, we would like to clarify that our central aim is the validation of the VSCT as a measure of cognitive map formation, which is why our predictions were primarily focused on its relationship with SCT and Corsi—both of which have been previously linked to spatial memory and working memory processes involved in cognitive mapping. The inclusion of additional tasks such as the RAVLT and the SSQ serves specific, complementary purposes: RAVLT acts as a control to distinguish domain-specific (spatial) from domain-general (verbal) memory processes, and the SSQ assesses the feasibility and user comfort of the VR environment. While we did not explicitly state the expected outcomes for these tasks in the results section, we have updated the manuscript to clarify their role and the rationale behind their inclusion. As for the SCT, we rely on existing literature (e.g., Burles et al., 2017) which demonstrates its utility in assessing allocentric spatial representations. We will clarify how SCT performance reflects individual differences in forming and retrieving cognitive maps and how it serves as a benchmark for validating the VSCT.

3. The relationship between the first and final administration of the original SCT task is unclear. The concept of training and improvement is hinted at in the Discussion section, and one wonders if repeated administration of the task is somehow seen to be an intervention. If so, a more formal delineation of this idea, and the evidence supporting it, needs to be presented. Moreover, what role is the VSCT task supposed to play here – i.e. is it expected to somehow catalyse that training effect? At this stage, our primary objective is to validate the VSCT as an effective and sensitive measure of cognitive map formation ability. While the repeated administration of the SCT might hint at potential training effects, our current study is not designed to assess those. Instead, it is structured to determine whether the VSCT can reliably detect individual differences in spatial performance and whether it correlates with established spatial measures like the SCT. Establishing the task’s validity is a necessary step before we can confidently use it to assess intervention outcomes or training effects. Once validated, future studies will be able to explore its utility in those contexts. To this end, only the first administration of the SCT (T1) will be used for correlation analyses with the VSCT, as it provides a baseline measure of spatial performance. The second administration (T2) is included solely for exploratory purposes—to investigate whether repeated exposure might lead to performance improvements and to preliminarily explore potential training effects. These exploratory findings could inform the design of future studies specifically aimed at assessing the impact of training or interventions. Establishing the VSCT’s validity is a necessary first step before we can confidently use it in such longitudinal or interventional contexts.

4. I’m not particularly convinced by the argument that rotational movements necessarily meet the exploratory claims made by the authors whilst also making the task accessible to groups with mobility difficulties. That is, why could participants not physically explore the space with full body movements? If it is essential that exploration can only be rotational in the SCT, then the argument for it being useful for participants with mobility issues is moot. If it is not essential, then why not start with something that allows for more natural exploratory movements and then consider validating a more accessible rotational version? In short, it is unclear exactly what is motivating the design as presented here. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our design choices. The decision to restrict participant movement to rotational exploration, rather than allowing full-body translational navigation, was intentionally made to enhance accessibility and reduce complexity for individuals with mobility impairments. While we agree that physical locomotion may offer more natural exploratory movements, our primary aim was to create a tool that is not only ecologically valid but also inclusive and feasible for populations who may be unable to ambulate. We have expanded the manuscript to better articulate this rationale. As described in the revised text, rotational exploration provides participants with vestibular and proprioceptive feedback critical to spatial learning, while avoiding the challenges and discomfort (e.g., motion sickness, cognitive load from complex controls) often associated with translational movement in VR. Moreover, this simplified approach mirrors the original SCT structure and allows us to maintain methodological continuity while still leveraging the immersive benefits of VR.

5. In order to be convinced that the SCT measures cognitive map construction, and that the VSCT does so in a similar manner, might it not also be useful to run an additional task that has a stronger evidence base for tapping the construct in question (e.g. four mountains, place learning, etc. – notwithstanding theoretical arguments about what constitutes a cognitive map, or whether those measures also test it!) Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We fully acknowledge that cognitive map formation is a debated construct, with multiple theoretical models and a range of tasks—such as Four Mountains or place learning—proposed to assess it. However, as we outline in the manuscript, our interest lies not only in measuring cognitive map formation broadly, but specifically in assessing the ability to switch between egocentric and allocentric reference frames during spatial encoding and retrieval. Given this focus, we selected the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT) as the most appropriate comparison, as it has been shown to emphasize these perspective transformations from a behavioral and neural perspective and has been used in previous studies exploring similar spatial mechanisms. This alignment in cognitive demands made the SCT a meaningful benchmark for validating the VSCT.

6. Finally, there appears to be no sense of addressing what the VSCT might buy us. If performance relates to a desktop equivalent, then what will be the need to continue developing a VR version? One might hope that performance will be superior, in the VR version, or more strongly predicted by related factors, thus supporting its potential as a more valid and accurate assay. As we briefly mention in the Discussion, our long-term vision for the VSCT extends beyond assessment. While the current study is focused on validating its utility as a tool to measure cognitive map formation, we believe the real strength of the VR-based approach lies in its potential as an interactive training platform. Unlike traditional desktop-based assessments, the VSCT incorporates proprioceptive and vestibular feedback, providing a more immersive and embodied experience. These sensory components are critical in real-world navigation and spatial learning, and their inclusion allows us to design a tool that not only measures cognitive map formation but may also be used to train and monitor improvements in spatial abilities over time—particularly for populations with motor or cognitive impairments. Additionally, the ecological validity afforded by VR enhances our ability to study nuanced cognitive processes, such as the switching between egocentric and allocentric frames of reference. This may help us better differentiate the underlying mechanisms that support spatial orientation and map formation, something that more constrained desktop tasks may not capture as effectively.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Mar 19. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21031.r51458

Reviewer response for version 1

David Uttal ¹

This manuscript reports on the development and validation of a new measure of spatial cognition, the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT). The new task creates a virtual environment in which participants explore using a wheeled chair. The authors suggest that this new test offers several advantages over existing measures, including the elimination of cognitive projection from two to three dimensions and a (hypothesized) reduction in motion sickness.

I agree that the proposed test could serve a very important role in both research and training. However, there are several important issues that must be addressed:

a) The actual research question to be tested is unclear. What precisely will be tested? What comparison (or correlation) was the power analysis designed to address? There appear to be several possible answers to this question. Perhaps the focus is on the validation of the test, and therefore the critical question is about correlations with other measures. Alternatively, the focus could be on a comparison to of the two tasks (spatial versus verbal). I realize that both possibilities are likely true, but nevertheless, the authors need to be clear about what specifically is being pre-registered.

Obviously, this is the most important question that must be addressed. The fact that the specific research question being addressed and pre-registered is unclear is a serious problem. The researchers need to be much clearer as to what questions they are testing, the focus of the power analysis, and so on.

c) The work does not seem to adequately build on prior work with virtual reality. There are now several publicly available VR-based tests of spatial learning (e.g., Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2016)[Refer 1]). Admittedly, many of these tests rely on non-immersive VR, but that alone is not a reason to dismiss them without consideration. What specific weaknesses or limitations of prior research will the proposed test address?

d) The researchers do not consider possible disadvantages or challenges of the “chair-based perspective.” While the researchers are correct regarding possible advantages, this method may also introduce disadvantages. For example, the vestibular cues associated with moving in a chair may be very different from those involved in walking. Can we assume that the unfamiliar chair-based perspective will provide a valid measure of navigation skill in everyday life experience? Why or why not?

e) Some aspects of the methods are underspecified. Basic information about the test, including the number of trials, is not included. Also, how will the psychometric reliability be assessed? Is there any preliminary data to suggest the test will be reliable? Likewise, the discussion of the expected results seems underspecified. For example, the authors predict positive correlations between some of the measures, but most tests show some positive relationship with each other. Thus, simply showing a positive correlation is not enough to claim that the test has been validated. Therefore, a more specific prediction regarding what level of correlation would be considered evidence of validation is needed.

f) One minor issue: Too many abbreviations are used, and they are used too frequently, sometimes within the same sentence. This makes it difficult to follow the text.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition

References

1. : How do (some) people make a cognitive map? Routes, places, and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn .2016;42(5) : 10.1037/xlm0000200 768-785 10.1037/xlm0000200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Open Res Eur. 2025 Apr 26.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

Alternatively, the focus could be on a comparison to of the two tasks (spatial versus verbal). I realize that both possibilities are likely true, but nevertheless, the authors need to be clear about what specifically is being pre-registered.

Thank you for this important and constructive comment. We fully agree that the specific research question and the rationale for the power analysis must be clearly stated. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to clarify both the theoretical framework and the statistical approach.

The primary objective of the study is to validate the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT) as a measure of cognitive map formation abilities. This validation involves testing: Convergent validity, through correlations between the VSCT and two established spatial cognition measures (the Spatial Configuration Task [SCT] and the Backward Corsi Block-Tapping Task), and Discriminant validity, by comparing the correlation between SCT and VSCT with the correlation between SCT and a verbal episodic memory task (the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [RAVLT]).

To test discriminant validity directly, a between-subjects design is used in which one group completes the VSCT and SCT (spatial condition), and another group completes the RAVLT and SCT (verbal condition). An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1. The statistical test specified was a z-test for comparing two independent Pearson's r. Assuming a moderate-to-large effect size (Cohen’s q = 0.4), α = 0.05, and power = 0.95, the analysis indicated that a total sample size of N = 166 participants (83 per group) would be sufficient to detect the expected difference in correlations.

This estimate was further supported by prior research using similar methodologies. For instance, Costa et al. (2021) validated two immersive VR tasks in a correlational framework with a smaller sample (N = 48), yet reported meaningful associations with traditional spatial measures. Likewise, He et al. (2022) employed a psychometric validation approach in VR using a sample of similar magnitude, also confirming robust convergent validity. While the power analysis provides an ideal sample size, these prior studies suggest that our methodological approach is feasible and well-grounded in the existing literature, even with smaller samples. We now include this rationale in the manuscript to clarify the reasoning behind our design and effect size assumptions.

b) The theoretical motivation for some of the experimental manipulations is unclear. Specifically, it is not clear why the researchers included the experimental manipulation in which half of the participants do NOT complete the spatial test but rather a “non-spatial auditory verbal task to isolate memory from spatial reasoning.” This explanation is inadequate, particularly given the centrality of this manipulation in the experimental design. More information is needed regarding what specifically the alternate task is designed to control for and what construct it is designed to operationalize and measure. We also acknowledge that the choice of a between-subjects design, rather than a within-subjects one, may warrant further justification. This decision was primarily driven by concerns about carryover effects and interference between tasks. In a within-subjects design, participants would necessarily complete both the spatial and non-spatial tasks, which could lead to contamination across conditions—especially given the possibility that completing one task might influence strategy use, engagement, or performance in the other.

Furthermore, since the non-spatial auditory verbal task is intended to serve as a control condition that isolates domain-general memory demands, having participants complete both tasks might undermine the interpretability of the contrast. A between-subjects design avoids these confounds by ensuring that each participant engages with only one cognitive domain, allowing for a cleaner comparison between spatial and non-spatial processing effects. Finally, the between-subjects design helps maintain ecological validity by mimicking more naturalistic situations in which individuals rely predominantly on either spatial or non-spatial strategies, rather than switching between the two in quick succession. We considered the possibility of counterbalancing the spatial and non-spatial tasks within a within-subjects design to control for order effects. However, we ultimately decided against this approach for both theoretical and methodological reasons.

From a theoretical standpoint, our main goal was to isolate domain-specific contributions to spatial learning by comparing distinct cognitive profiles across individuals. Having participants engage in both spatial and non-spatial tasks—even in counterbalanced order—could introduce unwanted transfer or interference effects, as the cognitive demands of one task might influence performance or strategy use in the other. Counterbalancing controls for average order effects, but it does not eliminate the possibility that completing one task fundamentally alters how the other is approached.

Moreover, asking participants to perform both tasks would significantly increase task length and complexity, raising the risk of fatigue, reduced engagement, and cross-task contamination—especially problematic given the immersive and cognitively demanding nature of our virtual reality task. A between-subjects design allowed us to maintain experimental focus and ecological validity without these concerns.

In short, while counterbalancing can be useful in many contexts, we felt that in this case, it would not adequately address the core concern: keeping the cognitive domains distinct enough to make meaningful comparisons between spatial and non-spatial contributions. c) The work does not seem to adequately build on prior work with virtual reality. There are now several publicly available VR-based tests of spatial learning (e.g., Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2016)[Refer 1]). Admittedly, many of these tests rely on non-immersive VR, but that alone is not a reason to dismiss them without consideration. What specific weaknesses or limitations of prior research will the proposed test address? We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and agree that prior work using VR-based tests of spatial learning—such as that by Weisberg & Newcombe (2016)—has made substantial contributions to the field. Our intention was not to dismiss these approaches, but rather to build on them by addressing several of their limitations and extending their applicability.

One key limitation of many existing VR-based paradigms, including non-immersive desktop-based environments, is that they often lack the embodied interaction and sensorimotor contingencies present in real-world navigation. These features are increasingly recognized as critical for the formation of robust cognitive maps, particularly in naturalistic spatial learning. Our task leverages immersive VR with free exploration and head-tracking to approximate real-world navigation more closely, which allows us to investigate spatial encoding in ecologically valid conditions while maintaining experimental control. Furthermore, many existing tasks focus primarily on landmark or route learning, often with limited emphasis on the configurational aspects of spatial memory (i.e., metric relations among multiple locations). Our tool was specifically designed to assess the formation and retrieval of configurational knowledge in a structured yet flexible way, which we believe is a less explored but crucial dimension of spatial cognition. In addition, prior tasks often do not provide clear separation between spatial reasoning and domain-general memory demands. By including a non-spatial control task, our design aims to disentangle these components, allowing us to better isolate the specific contribution of spatial abilities. We revised the manuscript to explicitly reference and critically engage with relevant prior work—including Weisberg & Newcombe (2016)—and more clearly articulate the novel contributions and theoretical advancements our task is intended to offer d) The researchers do not consider possible disadvantages or challenges of the “chair-based perspective.” While the researchers are correct regarding possible advantages, this method may also introduce disadvantages. For example, the vestibular cues associated with moving in a chair may be very different from those involved in walking. Can we assume that the unfamiliar chair-based perspective will provide a valid measure of navigation skill in everyday life experience? Why or why not? We acknowledge that vestibular and proprioceptive cues involved in real-world navigation—such as those engaged during walking—are not fully replicated in a seated, chair-based setup. However, our approach is grounded in the use of the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT) as a validated and reliable measure of spatial orientation and cognitive map formation. The SCT has been used extensively in prior research to assess spatial abilities without requiring full-body movement, and it is widely accepted in the field as a robust proxy for real-world navigation skills. Our assumption, therefore, is not that the chair-based setup captures all aspects of real-world navigation, but that it can validly assess key components of spatial cognition—particularly allocentric spatial memory—when used in conjunction with established cognitive measures like the SCT. The correlation between our new task (VSCT) and the SCT serves as a central validation criterion in our study. A meaningful correlation (Cohen’s q ≥ 0.3) with SCT would indicate that the VSCT taps into the same core cognitive abilities, supporting its construct validity despite the more limited sensory input. Moreover, chair-based navigation is increasingly used in VR-based research on spatial cognition, in part because it allows for standardized procedures across participants, including those with mobility limitations. This makes the paradigm more scalable and inclusive for broader research and potential clinical applications. That said, we recognize the need for caution when generalizing to real-world navigation. Our task is not intended to fully replicate real-life locomotion, but rather to capture key components of spatial configuration learning under controlled conditions. We will clarify these limitations in the manuscript and suggest future work comparing chair-based and ambulatory VR setups to further assess the generalizability of findings across navigation modalities. e) Some aspects of the methods are underspecified. Basic information about the test, including the number of trials, is not included. Also, how will the psychometric reliability be assessed? Is there any preliminary data to suggest the test will be reliable? Likewise, the discussion of the expected results seems underspecified. For example, the authors predict positive correlations between some of the measures, but most tests show some positive relationship with each other. Thus, simply showing a positive correlation is not enough to claim that the test has been validated. Therefore, a more specific prediction regarding what level of correlation would be considered evidence of validation is needed. Thank you for these helpful observations. We agree that some methodological aspects of the task and validation approach were under-specified in the current version of the manuscript, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify and expand on these elements. First, we revised the methods section to include more detailed information about the structure of the test, including the number of trials, and trial duration. These details were inadvertently omitted in the current draft and are essential for replicability and for understanding the psychometric potential of the task. Regarding reliability, we plan to assess internal consistency using split-half and/or Cronbach’s alpha methods for key performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, error scores), depending on distributional characteristics. In addition, we aim to conduct a test–retest reliability study in a subsample of participants to examine stability over time. Although formal reliability estimates are not yet available, preliminary data from pilot testing suggest that performance patterns are consistent across trials and across participants, supporting the potential for good internal reliability. As for the validation analyses, we agree that simply observing positive correlations with other tasks is insufficient. We will more clearly specify our a priori expectations regarding the magnitude of the correlations that would constitute meaningful evidence of convergent validity. Specifically, we anticipate moderate to strong correlations (e.g., r ≥ .40) with established measures of spatial configuration learning, and weaker correlations with non-spatial control measures. This pattern would support the construct validity of our tool while also demonstrating discriminant validity. We will revise the manuscript to articulate these expectations explicitly, include benchmarks for interpretation, and outline how we plan to evaluate both convergent and discriminant validity in the context of the broader cognitive framework. f) One minor issue: Too many abbreviations are used, and they are used too frequently, sometimes within the same sentence. This makes it difficult to follow the text.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Mar 19. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21031.r51668

Reviewer response for version 1

Simon Lhuillier ¹

The aim of this research protocol is to validate a tool for assessing high-level spatial abilities, the principle of which is to improve the ecological validity of a pre-existing 2D tool (Spatial Configuration Task) by implementing an immersive virtual reality headset (Virtual SCT). The usefulness of such a tool seems well justified by the importance of proprioceptive and rotational information involved in the creation of a mental representation of space. However, in its present form, this study has a number of critical flaws which I believe would categorically prevent its publication. However, as this is a pre-protocol study, I consider that substantial changes can still be made to the experimental design and I do not recommend refusing indexed outright, provided that such changes are indeed made. Please find below a summary of the major limitations of the study, followed by minor comments.

MAJOR COMMENTS :

The theoretical justifications for what the task assesses are unclear. What exactly do the authors mean by “cognitive maps” and “spatial representation” ? They introduce a broad definition of spatial abilities but then use the terms “spatial representation” and “cognitive maps” without clearly defining them. This is problematic because multiple theories exist regarding spatial representations, some of which may not be assessable through the task used in the study. Additionally, the authors never define “navigation,” yet it is widely understood to involve goal-directed movement through space (Montello, 2015), which does not apply here : but most models of spatial representation assume a reliance on neural mechanisms (as described in the first author’s thesis) that are unlikely to be involved in the VSCT—such as place cells and grid cells, which contribute to egocentric spatial binding in navigation. Beyond these two broad notions, the study provides no further details on the specific spatial abilities relevant to the VSCT—such as mental rotation or perspective-taking. Furthermore, the discussion omits key concepts, such as whether participants rely on an egocentric or allocentric frame of reference to solve the task, which seems crucial to consider.

The research design does not seem well-suited to address the study’s objective. The authors claim that VR “offers several advantages over traditional 2D and 3D desktop assessments of spatial abilities” (including over the SCT), yet they do not plan to directly compare SCT and VSCT. Instead, they use the VSCT as a training method for an SCT retest. While this approach does not allow for validating the VSCT as a spatial ability test, the choice of a comparison condition—a non-spatial task (RAVLT)—also limits the ability to assess the effectiveness of VSCT training. A proper evaluation would require a comparison not only with a non-spatial control condition but also with a non-VR spatial training condition. Moreover, the authors do not justify why they expect performing a VR task to facilitate the SCT retest. Without a clear rationale, one might assume that the VSCT is simply another iteration of the SCT, serving as direct practice for the SCT task rather than training the spatial abilities it is supposed to measure. The introduction to the discussion further highlights this conceptual confusion: the authors state that their goal is to validate the VSCT for assessing cognitive map formation, yet the VSCT is never actually used to evaluate this ability in the study. Additionally, alternative tests that could serve as comparisons (e.g., Gehrke et al., 2018; Hartman et al., 2006) are mentioned but not directly compared to the VSCT.

The analysis plan is not appropriate. First, age and sex are treated as independent variables, yet they are never discussed in the introduction. All independent variables should be thoroughly justified based on existing literature in the introduction and commented in the discussion. Additionally, given the study design, the independent variables must include the between-subject experimental condition (VR vs. AV) and account for within-subject changes in SCT scores before and after training. A proper repeated-measures analysis should be used to analyse these effects.

MINOR COMMENTS :

Introduction

Page 3 : Extra parenthesis after (Bartlett & Camba, 2022).
Page 3 : Authors argue that a VR implementation of the SCT is needed because physically rotating to visually explore the environment should reduce motion sickness. This claim is highly disputable regarding scientific literature, as articles and reviews on the matter suggest that HMD are in fact producing more motion sickness symptoms than other displays (see Rebenitsch & Owen, 2016).

Method

Page 4 : More details are needed regarding the sample size calculation. The specific analysis for which the calculation was performed must be explicitly stated (i.e., the "type of power analysis" used in G*Power). As it stands, the reported effect size (f) suggests that an incorrect type of power analysis was used, given that f is used for ANOVA, while no ANOVA is planned in the study. Additionally, a sample size of n=54 for two independent groups appears rather low, justifying this by citing a single other study with a similar sample size is insufficient—especially since He et al. (2022) used a fully within-subject design.
Page 4 : The “screening phase” is very confusing. It is mentioned, but no inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported. Moreover, it is said after that the participants will be assessed online via Psytoolkit : is it still screening phase ? Why are both Psytoolkit and Qualtrics used ? Why are there “psychometric tests” during screening and which one ?
Page 4 : I don’t understand why this separate sentence “the spatial performances […] following tasks” is isolated before describing a non-spatial task (RAVLT) a paragraph later.
Page 4 : The SCT is a task administered during the study, so it must be described in detail (regardless of whether it has been published previously). In addition, all differences between SCT and VSCT should be explicitly listed so that readers can directly understand what differs between SCT and VSCT.
Page 4 : How the SSQ is used is not clear, as it is likely not used to compare motion sickness in the SCT vs VCST (which would yet be useful here to check for increased risk of motion sickness with VR). It is not referred to in the analysis plan section.
Page 4 : An eye tracking system is mentioned here, but no ocular data is described in the analysis plan.
Page 5 : The justification for changing geometrical shapes for objects in VSCT seems shallow, as the resulting scenario cannot be considered as “immersive” and “ecologically valid” because of the settings (empty space with random objects on the ground, and not a “room” as stated).
Page 5 : It is unclear if the objects are the same in the 10 different scenes, and what exactly is different between all of them ?
Page 5 : Why are there “missing objects” during the training phase ?
Page 5 : Training phase section is misleading. Why would participants return to the main menu, and switch scenes by themselves, why choosing 20 seconds maximum time, and why 20 scenes while authors said that only 10 scenes were created ? Do participants answer spatial task (like in Figure 1a) during this training phase ?
Page 5 : The title “Environment navigation/locomotion” is misleading. Is locomotion involved or not ? Authors specifically said before that participants only rotated on a chair.
Page 5 and 6 : Figures should be higher resolution
Page 6 : the procedure suggests that the training phase is in fact a learning phase, followed by a test phase. Needs clarification.
Page 6 : Writing style should be inclusive (“(two in front of them, and one behind them”)).
Page 6 : Why only three consecutive trials ? Isn’t it very short and easy ? If not please provide more information.
Page 6 : about the RAVLT, “it is crucial to present the words in the same order and with the same pronunciation for each participants”. Why not using audio recording or a video for this ?
Page 6 : The scrambled image test is never described
Page 6 : “ This will help us understand the influence of global intelligence and working memory capacity”. No general intelligence test is mentioned elsewhere in the study

Discussion

Page 7 : Potential applications of the VSCT for populations with impaired movement. You need to specify which specific populations you are referring to.
Page 7 : “The task’s reliance on proprioceptive feedback […] enhances its effectiveness in spatial learning and navigation”. You don’t and will not know this, since no direct comparison is made with SCT
The global tone must be toned down, no data are collected and such conclusions would not be permitted with the chosen design : “the validation of the VSCT represents a significant advancement in spatial cognition research”

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition, spatial representations, virtual reality, spatial and temporal cognitive interactions, embodied and situated cognition

References

1. : Spatial Cognition.2015; 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.72057-5 111-115 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.72057-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. : Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality .2016;20(2) : 10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9 101-125 10.1007/s10055-016-0285-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Open Res Eur. 2025 Apr 26.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

MAJOR COMMENTS :

The theoretical justifications for what the task assesses are unclear. What exactly do the authors mean by “cognitive maps” and “spatial representation”? They introduce a broad definition of spatial abilities but then use the terms “spatial representation” and “cognitive maps” without clearly defining them. This is problematic because multiple theories exist regarding spatial representations, some of which may not be assessable through the task used in the study. Additionally, the authors never define “navigation,” yet it is widely understood to involve goal-directed movement through space (Montello, 2015), which does not apply here: but most models of spatial representation assume a reliance on neural mechanisms (as described in the first author’s thesis) that are unlikely to be involved in the VSCT—such as place cells and grid cells, which contribute to egocentric spatial binding in navigation. Beyond these two broad notions, the study provides no further details on the specific spatial abilities relevant to the VSCT—such as mental rotation or perspective-taking. Furthermore, the discussion omits key concepts, such as whether participants rely on an egocentric or allocentric frame of reference to solve the task, which seems crucial to consider. We agree that terms like cognitive map, spatial representation, and navigation can carry multiple theoretical meanings, and it is essential to define how we are using them within the context of this study. In response to your comment, we have now explicitly defined a cognitive map as a mental representation of the spatial layout of an environment, allowing an individual to acquire, code, store, recall, and decode information about the relative locations of places, landmarks, and routes [(Tolman, 1984)]. In addition, we have added a paragraph in the introduction, elaborating on the theoretical background surrounding allocentric and egocentric spatial strategies, both of which are central to the concept of cognitive mapping. Specifically, we acknowledge that allocentric strategies involve representing spatial relationships between landmarks independently of the observer’s position (i.e., map-like), whereas egocentric strategies encode spatial information relative to the observer’s own viewpoint. While the VSCT does not involve full bodily movement or large-scale wayfinding, it is designed to assess an individual’s ability to mentally represent and recall the spatial relationships among landmarks within a 3D virtual environment. This setup supports allocentric encoding by allowing participants to build a representation of the layout across different viewpoints and potentially engages egocentric processing during the encoding phase. Thus, although the task may not elicit neural activity from systems such as grids or place cells in the same way real-world navigation does, it targets higher-order spatial abilities that are widely accepted as central components of spatial cognition and cognitive map formation. The research design does not seem well-suited to address the study’s objective. The authors claim that VR “offers several advantages over traditional 2D and 3D desktop assessments of spatial abilities” (including over the SCT), yet they do not plan to directly compare SCT and VSCT. Instead, they use the VSCT as a training method for an SCT retest. While this approach does not allow for validating the VSCT as a spatial ability test, the choice of a comparison condition—a non-spatial task (RAVLT)—also limits the ability to assess the effectiveness of VSCT training. A proper evaluation would require a comparison not only with a non-spatial control condition but also with a non-VR spatial training condition. Moreover, the authors do not justify why they expect performing a VR task to facilitate the SCT retest. Without a clear rationale, one might assume that the VSCT is simply another iteration of the SCT, serving as direct practice for the SCT task rather than training the spatial abilities it is supposed to measure. The introduction to the discussion further highlights this conceptual confusion: the authors state that their goal is to validate the VSCT for assessing cognitive map formation, yet the VSCT is never actually used to evaluate this ability in the study. Additionally, alternative tests that could serve as comparisons (e.g., Gehrke et al., 2018; Hartman et al., 2006) are mentioned but not directly compared to the VSCT. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our research design and the rationale behind it. Our study attempts to directly compare the newly developed VSCT and the SCT at Time 1 (T1). Specifically, we run the comparison between VSCT performance and SCT scores to assess convergent validity and to fulfil our primary objective, i.e., to determine whether the VSCT reliably measures cognitive map formation abilities, as operationalized through an established spatial task. On the contrary, we acknowledge that the SCT retest was not designed to serve as a formal validation criterion. Rather, we have positioned the SCT retest as an exploratory component—intended to evaluate whether performing the VSCT might influence spatial recall when the SCT is administered again. This secondary analysis aims to explore potential transfer effects, which are ancillary to our primary validity measures. As for the use of a non-spatial task (RAVLT) in the comparison group, our intention is not to measure training effectiveness, but to test discriminant validity. By comparing the correlation between SCT and VSCT (spatial-spatial pairing) versus SCT and RAVLT (spatial-verbal pairing), we can determine whether VSCT is specifically related to spatial abilities rather than general memory performance. We agree that additional comparison conditions—such as non-VR spatial tasks or direct comparisons to alternative paradigms like those proposed by Gehrke et al. (2018) or Hartman et al. (2006)—would provide further insight. However, this study focuses on the initial validation of the VSCT as a spatial cognition tool and lays the groundwork for future work that will include those broader comparisons. We will clarify these points in the revised manuscript to make our rationale and design choices more transparent. The analysis plan is not appropriate. First, age and sex are treated as independent variables, yet they are never discussed in the introduction. All independent variables should be thoroughly justified based on existing literature in the introduction and commented in the discussion. Additionally, given the study design, the independent variables must include the between-subject experimental condition (VR vs. AV) and account for within-subject changes in SCT scores before and after training. A proper repeated-measures analysis should be used to analyse these effects. Age and sex are not treated as independent variables in our primary analyses. They were included for the mere purpose of ensuring that the two experimental groups (VR vs. verbal task) are demographically balanced, not to examine their effects on task performance. As such, we did not discuss them in the introduction or interpret them in the discussion, as they are not central to our research questions. Regarding the repeated-measures design, we appreciate your suggestion. However, our primary objective is not to assess the training effectiveness of the VSCT but rather to validate it as a tool for measuring cognitive map formation. The SCT retest is included as an exploratory follow-up, not as a main outcome, and therefore was not incorporated into our preregistered statistical plan. Since the validation is based on cross-sectional correlations (e.g., VSCT ~ SCT at T1) and group comparisons in convergent vs. discriminant validity, a repeated-measures analysis of SCT scores was not considered essential to address the core aims of the study. We acknowledge the potential value of further exploring training effects in future work and will clarify this distinction in the manuscript to avoid confusion about the study’s primary focus. Thank you again for helping us improve the clarity and rigor of our design and reporting. MINOR COMMENTS : Introduction

Page 3 : Extra parenthesis after (Bartlett & Camba, 2022).

Typo corrected Page 3 : Authors argue that a VR implementation of the SCT is needed because physically rotating to visually explore the environment should reduce motion sickness. This claim is highly disputable regarding scientific literature, as articles and reviews on the matter suggest that HMD are in fact producing more motion sickness symptoms than other displays (see Rebenitsch & Owen, 2016). We acknowledge that head-mounted displays (HMDs) can, in some contexts, be associated with motion sickness, we respectfully disagree with the interpretation that this undermines the rationale for our design. Specifically, our claim is not that HMDs universally reduce motion sickness compared to all display types, but that using real physical movement (i.e., body rotation) within an HMD setup can significantly reduce motion sickness when compared to artificial locomotion methods such as joystick or controller-based movement. This distinction is critical. Numerous studies have demonstrated that sensorimotor congruence—where physical movements of the body align with the visual flow in the VR environment—reduces cybersickness symptoms. Passive or controller-based movement often introduces sensory conflict, which is a well-established contributor to motion sickness in VR. By enabling users to physically rotate to explore the virtual environment (as in our task), we aim to minimize sensory mismatch and thus mitigate motion sickness. Furthermore, the objective of our task is to validate spatial cognition within immersive VR environments, not to compare HMDs to non-immersive or 2D display formats. Our interest is specifically in how to optimize immersion within HMD-based tasks while minimizing discomfort—not in comparing display technologies, which falls outside the scope of this study. Method Page 4 : More details are needed regarding the sample size calculation. The specific analysis for which the calculation was performed must be explicitly stated (i.e., the "type of power analysis" used in G*Power). As it stands, the reported effect size (f) suggests that an incorrect type of power analysis was used, given that f is used for ANOVA, while no ANOVA is planned in the study. Additionally, a sample size of n=54 for two independent groups appears rather low, justifying this by citing a single other study with a similar sample size is insufficient—especially since He et al. (2022) used a fully within-subject design. Thank you for your careful reading and constructive comment. We fully agree that the research question and the focus of the power analysis must be clearly and explicitly stated. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to clarify both the analytical approach and the rationale for the sample size. To clarify: the main objective of the study is to test the construct validity of the newly developed Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), by assessing: Convergent validity through correlations between VSCT and two established spatial cognition measures (Spatial Configuration Task [SCT] and Corsi Block-Tapping Task), and Discriminant validity by comparing the correlation between SCT and VSCT with that between SCT and a verbal memory task (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test [RAVLT]). To test discriminant validity directly, we employ a between-subjects design in which: One group completes the VSCT and SCT (spatial condition), Another group completes the RAVLT and SCT (verbal condition). We conducted an a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1, specifying the statistical test as a z-test comparing two independent Pearson’s r values (i.e., correlation coefficients). The analysis assumed a moderate-to-large effect size (Cohen’s q = 0.4), α = .05, and power (1 – β) = 0.95. The required sample size for this test was N = 166 (i.e., 83 per group). This calculation has now been explicitly described in the Methods section of the revised manuscript. The choice of effect size was informed by Cohen’s (1988) conventions, but also weighted by empirical precedent from previous studies. For instance, Costa et al. (2021) used a similar immersive VR setting and demonstrated significant convergent correlations using a comparable sample. Furthermore, He et al. (2022) validated a spatial perspective-taking task using a within-subjects design and a similar sample size. However, we acknowledge—as the reviewer rightly points out—that within-subjects designs generally offer higher statistical power than between-subjects designs. We now explicitly note this difference in the revised manuscript and justify our more conservative effect size assumption by accounting for the increased variability introduced by immersive VR environments, which typically require additional training and participant adaptation.

Page 4 : The “screening phase” is very confusing. It is mentioned, but no inclusion/exclusion criteria are reported. Moreover, it is said after that the participants will be assessed online via Psytoolkit : is it still screening phase ? Why are both Psytoolkit and Qualtrics used ? Why are there “psychometric tests” during screening and which one ?

Thank you for pointing out the confusion regarding the terminology and procedures described on Page 4. To clarify, we have updated the term “screening phase” to “first evaluation phase” to better reflect the nature of this initial step. This change was made to avoid the implication that formal inclusion or exclusion criteria were being applied. In this first evaluation phase, we do not apply any exclusion criteria. The purpose of this phase is simply to collect demographic information and participants’ performance on the Corsi Block-Tapping Task, which is used later for correlational analyses in the validation process. Regarding the use of PsyToolkit and Qualtrics:

PsyToolkit was used to administer the Corsi task, as it provides a validated and widely used online implementation.

Qualtrics was used to collect demographic data (e.g., age, sex).

There are no additional psychometric tests administered in this phase. We will revise the manuscript accordingly to clearly describe this procedure and prevent any further confusion. Thank you again for your helpful feedback.

Page 4 : I don’t understand why this separate sentence “the spatial performances […] following tasks” is isolated before describing a non-spatial task (RAVLT) a paragraph later.

We specified that we used RAVLT not to test spatial performances but as discriminat measure of verbal vs spatial memory We agree that the sentence placement may have caused some confusion. To clarify, the sentence referring to “spatial performances” was intended to introduce the tasks specifically used to assess spatial abilities, such as the VSCT, SCT, and Corsi. We have now clarified in the manuscript that the RAVLT was not included to assess spatial performance, but rather used as a discriminant measure—to differentiate verbal memory from spatial memory processes. This distinction supports the assessment of discriminant validity, by allowing us to test whether the newly developed spatial task (VSCT) is more strongly associated with spatial rather than verbal cognitive functions. We have revised the paragraph to improve the logical flow and ensure the role of each task is clearly described. Page 4 : The SCT is a task administered during the study, so it must be described in detail (regardless of whether it has been published previously). In addition, all differences between SCT and VSCT should be explicitly listed so that readers can directly understand what differs between SCT and VSCT. While we acknowledge that the description of the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT) is brief, our primary focus in this manuscript is the development and validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT). The SCT has been thoroughly described and validated in the referenced publication (Burles et al., 2017), which we cite for readers seeking detailed methodological information. Given the scope of this study, we chose not to include redundant details and instead directed our attention to the novel aspects of the VSCT. Page 4 : How the SSQ is used is not clear, as it is likely not used to compare motion sickness in the SCT vs VCST (which would yet be useful here to check for increased risk of motion sickness with VR). It is not referred to in the analysis plan section. We thank the reviewer for this observation and would like to clarify the role of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) in our study. While the Spatial Configuration Test (SCT) is indeed computer-based, it is not immersive and does not involve simulated self-motion, 3D depth cues, or head tracking. As such, it does not typically elicit motion sickness symptoms, and we do not expect it to trigger the kind of sensory mismatch effects associated with immersive VR. For this reason, the SSQ was administered only in the context of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), which is immersive and includes active visual exploration through head movements. Our intention was not to use the SSQ for cross-condition comparisons, but rather as a monitoring tool to ensure participant comfort and to identify any individuals who experienced significant motion sickness in the VR condition. Page 4 : An eye tracking system is mentioned here, but no ocular data is described in the analysis plan. You are correct that the mention of the eye-tracking system was potentially misleading. It was originally included simply to provide a more complete description of the hardware setup used during the task administration, but we confirm that no ocular data were recorded or analyzed as part of this study. To avoid confusion, we have now removed this detail from the manuscript, since it is not relevant to the research questions or analysis plan. Page 5 : The justification for changing geometrical shapes for objects in VSCT seems shallow, as the resulting scenario cannot be considered as “immersive” and “ecologically valid” because of the settings (empty space with random objects on the ground, and not a “room” as stated). Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree with the reviewer that, given the minimalistic and artificial nature of the virtual environment, referring to the use of household objects as enhancing "ecological relevance" may have been misleading. Instead, we have revised the text to emphasize that these objects were chosen for their high familiarity and recognizability, which helps reduce variability in object encoding and supports more consistent performance across participants. This change has been reflected in the revised manuscript accordingly.

Page 5 : It is unclear if the objects are the same in the 10 different scenes, and what exactly is different between all of them? Page 5 : Why are there “missing objects” during the training phase ? We have now eliminated the training phase from the protocol and updated the task section in accordance Page 5 : Training phase section is misleading. Why would participants return to the main menu, and switch scenes by themselves, why choosing 20 seconds maximum time, and why 20 scenes while authors said that only 10 scenes were created ? Do participants answer spatial task (like in Figure 1a) during this training phase ? See comment above Page 5 : The title “Environment navigation/locomotion” is misleading. Is locomotion involved or not? Authors specifically said before that participants only rotated on a chair. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that the term “locomotion” was misleading, as participants did not physically navigate through space but rather explored the virtual environment by rotating on a chair. To better reflect the actual procedure, we have replaced “locomotion” with “exploration” throughout the manuscript, including in the section title. This change ensures terminological accuracy and avoids confusion regarding the nature of participants’ movements during the task. Page 5 and 6 : Figures should be higher resolution We will upload better resolution images Page 6 : the procedure suggests that the training phase is in fact a learning phase, followed by a test phase. Needs clarification. We have now eliminated the training phase from the protocol and updated the task section in accordance Page 6 : Writing style should be inclusive (“(two in front of them, and one behind them”)). We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding inclusive writing. We have revised the relevant sentence—and others where needed—to ensure a more inclusive and neutral phrasing (e.g., replacing “in front of them”/“behind them” with spatially clear, participant-centered language). We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding inclusive writing. We have revised the relevant sentence—and others where needed—to ensure a more inclusive and neutral phrasing (e.g., replacing “in front of them”/“behind them” with spatially clear, participant-centered language). We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding inclusive writing. We have revised the relevant sentence—and others where needed—to ensure a more inclusive and neutral phrasing (e.g., replacing “in front of them”/“behind them” with spatially clear, participant-centered language). We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to this. Page 6 : Why only three consecutive trials ? Isn’t it very short and easy ? If not please provide more information. The task has since been modified: there is no longer a training phase. Participants are now required to complete 40 trials in the same manner as the SCT. Page 6 : about the RAVLT, “it is crucial to present the words in the same order and with the same pronunciation for each participants”. Why not using audio recording or a video for this? We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While we agree that audio or video recordings can enhance standardization, in this case we chose to follow the official administration guidelines for the RAVLT, which specify live verbal presentation by an examiner. To ensure consistency, the same trained experimenter administered the word lists to all participants, strictly following the standardized timing and pronunciation provided in the RAVLT manual. This approach preserves both the test’s ecological and methodological validity, as it aligns with how the RAVLT is commonly used and interpreted in clinical and research settings. Page 6 : The scrambled image test is never described You're absolutely right—the scrambled image test was not designed as a cognitive measure and has no analytical role in our study. Its sole purpose was to serve as a neutral filler task to occupy participants during the delay interval between the encoding and recall phases of the VSCT. To avoid confusion, we have now clarified this point in the manuscript and explicitly stated that the scrambled image task is included only to control for retention interval duration, with no data recorded or analyzed from this task. Page 6 : “ This will help us understand the influence of global intelligence and working memory capacity”. No general intelligence test is mentioned elsewhere in the study You are correct — no general intelligence measure is included in the study. That sentence originally reflected an earlier version of the design. We have since removed the reference to “global intelligence” and now refer only to working memory capacity, as assessed by the Corsi Block-Tapping Task. The sentence has been revised accordingly to accurately reflect the current design and avoid any confusion about the variables being examined. Discussion Page 7 : Potential applications of the VSCT for populations with impaired movement. You need to specify which specific populations you are referring to. We appreciate the reviewer’s request for clarification. Our reference to populations with impaired movement was meant to suggest the potential applicability of the VSCT in contexts where full-body locomotion is not feasible. We will revise the manuscript to include illustrative examples—such as individuals with spinal cord injury, neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., multiple sclerosis), or age-related mobility impairments—while avoiding an exhaustive list. The core idea is that the chair-based design of the VSCT allows for the assessment of spatial abilities in individuals who cannot participate in walking-based or ambulatory VR tasks. Page 7 : “The task’s reliance on proprioceptive feedback […] enhances its effectiveness in spatial learning and navigation”. You don’t and will not know this, since no direct comparison is made with SCT To clarify, our intention was to highlight that, unlike the SCT, the VSCT allows for physical rotational movement, which—according to existing literature—can engage vestibular and proprioceptive systems, both of which are known to play a role in spatial orientation and learning. While we do not directly measure the contribution of these sensory inputs in this study, we base this aspect of our design on prior evidence suggesting that physical movement, particularly head and body rotation, can enhance spatial processing by reducing sensory mismatch and engaging real-world navigation systems. The global tone must be toned down, no data are collected and such conclusions would not be permitted with the chosen design : “the validation of the VSCT represents a significant advancement in spatial cognition research” We fully agree with your point—since no empirical data have yet been collected, strong conclusive statements are premature and not appropriate at this stage. We have revised the statement to reflect a more cautious and accurate tone. Specifically, we have changed: “the validation of the VSCT represents a significant advancement in spatial cognition research” to: “the validation of the VSCT could represent a meaningful advancement in spatial cognition research” This adjustment ensures that our claims remain appropriately tentative and aligned with the current study design and preregistration status. We appreciate your guidance in helping us maintain scientific rigor.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Mar 18. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21031.r51674

Reviewer response for version 1

Laura Miola ¹

I reviewed the Pre-Protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities. The study presents the validation of a 3D spatial task designed to evaluate the ability to construct a mental representation of the environment. Overall, the protocol is well-structured, the rationale is clearly articulated, emphasizing the limitations of traditional 2D spatial tasks and the potential benefits of an immersive 3D VR environment. Here are some points that could improve the clarity of the study:

Since this is a validation study, the authors should explicitly specify how they plan to assess the validity and reliability of the task. While they mention conducting certain analyses, it is unclear which ones are specifically intended to evaluate aspects such as convergent and discriminant validity or reliability. Providing more detail on the methodological approach for these assessments would strengthen the study. Some useful suggestions can be found in the paper: Brysbaert, M. (2024). Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: A tutorial. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 11.[Refer 1].
The reasoning behind dividing participants into two groups could be explained more clearly. It would be helpful to elaborate further on why this specific comparison was chosen and how it contributes to the validation process. Additionally, specifying whether the study follows a between-subjects or within-subjects design would help improve clarity.
I suggest providing a more detailed description of the power analysis, including the statistical analysis used to calculate it. The authors may prefer using Cohen's d or providing a justification for the effect size.
Although the task closely resembles the Spatial Configuration Task, the description of the training phase is not entirely clear, primarily due to the poor visibility of the images 1c and 1d. Additionally, it is unclear which movements participants were allowed to perform and at what stage.
In the introduction, I suggest citing theoretical models to define spatial abilities rather than referencing a master's thesis.
In the hypothesis section, the authors mention the RAVLT task using its acronym without having introduced it earlier. Conversely, the SSQ is fully cited in the introduction, but only its acronym is mentioned in the Methods and Materials section.
In the linear model analysis, are the authors referring to VSCT or SCT?
There are some typographical errors related to parentheses in the introduction.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition, individual differences, environmental psychology

References

1. : Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial. Cogn Res Princ Implic .2024;9(1) : 10.1186/s41235-024-00540-2 11 10.1186/s41235-024-00540-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Open Res Eur. 2025 Apr 26.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

I reviewed the Pre-Protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities. The study presents the validation of a 3D spatial task designed to evaluate the ability to construct a mental representation of the environment. Overall, the protocol is well-structured, the rationale is clearly articulated, emphasizing the limitations of traditional 2D spatial tasks and the potential benefits of an immersive 3D VR environment. Here are some points that could improve the clarity of the study: Since this is a validation study, the authors should explicitly specify how they plan to assess the validity and reliability of the task. While they mention conducting certain analyses, it is unclear which ones are specifically intended to evaluate aspects such as convergent and discriminant validity or reliability. Providing more detail on the methodological approach for these assessments would strengthen the study. Some useful suggestions can be found in the paper: Brysbaert, M. (2024). Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: A tutorial. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9(1), 11.[Refer 1]. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have revised the manuscript to clarify our approach to evaluating both the validity and reliability of the Visual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT). Specifically, we now explicitly distinguish between the methods used to assess convergent and discriminant validity, as well as reliability. To assess discriminant validity, we included the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), not because we anticipated a correlation, but precisely because we expected no significant relationship. The RAVLT measures verbal episodic memory, while the VSCT targets visuospatial configuration memory—two theoretically and empirically distinct constructs. The absence of a significant correlation between these tasks supports the discriminant validity of the VSCT by demonstrating that it does not simply reflect general memory ability. In addition, we have now outlined our plans for assessing convergent validity, which involve correlating performance on the VSCT with other tasks that tap into similar visuospatial memory constructs (details included in the updated Methods section, P3). Regarding reliability, we are preparing a second study since the first one involved only a one-time measurement of VSCT. In the next study, we will expose participants to VSCT one week apart to assess test-retest reliability. These clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript (see P3), strengthening the methodological transparency of the study. The reasoning behind dividing participants into two groups could be explained more clearly. It would be helpful to elaborate further on why this specific comparison was chosen and how it contributes to the validation process. Additionally, specifying whether the study follows a between-subjects or within-subjects design would help improve clarity. Thank you for your helpful comment. In response, we have clarified the reasoning behind dividing participants into two groups and specified the study design. The revised text now reads: “This study aims to validate the newly developed VSCT by evaluating participants' performance on the original SCT both before and after VR exposure. We will use a between-subjects design, sorting participants into two groups to clarify the specific effects of spatial versus non-spatial cognitive demands. One group will perform the task in virtual reality, while the other will engage in a non-spatial auditory verbal task, adapted from Bacon et al. (2008), to isolate memory processes from spatial reasoning. This comparison allows us to determine whether improvements or changes in SCT performance are specifically related to spatial cognitive training, rather than general cognitive engagement. Both groups will also complete standardized cognitive tests targeting functions like working memory, which are involved in constructing cognitive maps, to further assess the VSCT's validity as a spatial cognition tool.” We hope this revision addresses your concerns and improves the clarity and rationale of our study design. I suggest providing a more detailed description of the power analysis, including the statistical analysis used to calculate it. The authors may prefer using Cohen's d or providing a justification for the effect size. Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed description of the power analysis, including the statistical model used and the justification for the chosen effect size. Although the task closely resembles the Spatial Configuration Task, the description of the training phase is not entirely clear, primarily due to the poor visibility of images 1c and 1d. Additionally, it is unclear which movements participants were allowed to perform and at what stage. Thank you for your observation. We have revised the text to clarify the type of movement allowed during the task. Specifically, we now state:

“In our study, translational movement is not performed by participants. Instead, participants are seated in a swivel chair that allows them to actively rotate their torso left and right, enabling 360-degree exploration of the environment.” Regarding the figure, we acknowledge that the resolution of images 1c and 1d in the uploaded protocol is suboptimal. We believe this issue may be due to image degradation during the online conversion process. To address this, we will upload a higher-resolution version of the figure to ensure better visibility and clarity. In the introduction, I suggest citing theoretical models to define spatial abilities rather than referencing a master's thesis. Thank you for your suggestion. We understand the importance of grounding definitions in well-established theoretical models. However, because our work builds directly on the Spatial Configuration Task (SCT), we felt it was meaningful to reference the master’s thesis that contributed to the initial validation of the SCT. This citation acknowledges the foundational work related to the task’s development and helps contextualize our adaptation. That said, we appreciate your point and included additional references to broader theoretical models of spatial abilities to complement this citation. In the hypothesis section, the authors mention the RAVLT task using its acronym without having introduced it earlier. Conversely, the SSQ is fully cited in the introduction, but only its acronym is mentioned in the Methods and Materials section. Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the oversight by introducing the full name of the RAVLT (Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test) before using its acronym. Regarding the SSQ (Simulator Sickness Questionnaire), we believe it is sufficient to use the acronym after it has been fully cited in the introduction, in line with standard academic conventions. In the linear model analysis, are the authors referring to VSCT or SCT? We have slightly modified the analysis plan to better clarify the purpose of the measures described. Specifically, we now state that the SCT is the outcome variable used in the t-test and linear regression analyses. These analyses aim to assess potential differences between the control and experimental groups and to verify whether age and sex—which were collected as sociodemographic variables known to influence spatial navigation—could act as confounders. Additionally, we now specify that independent samples t-tests will also be conducted to compare CORSI and SBSOD scores between groups, in order to further confirm group equivalence on relevant cognitive measures. These revisions have been made to enhance clarity and align the text with the objectives of the study. There are some typographical errors related to parentheses in the introduction. Mistake corrected.

Open Res Eur. 2025 Mar 6. doi: 10.21956/openreseurope.21031.r51672

Reviewer response for version 1

Julian Keil ¹

The study protocol of Alberto Massimiliano Umiltà and colleagues proposes an approach to validate a task aimed to assess spatial memory and performance. The authors describe the disadvantages of assessing spatial abilities using commonly applied 2D tasks very well. They provide an interesting alternative 3D task created in Unity and using an VR HMD. The selection of sample size and the sampling process are well described. However, important details on the experiment design, hypotheses and the experiment procedure are still missing. These details are required to fully evaluate the appropriateness of the suggested spatial task for its intended purpose.

General comments:

The cited Burles F and Burles CF are probably the same person (Ford Burles)? Please check your references and citations again for potential discrepancies.

I recommend that you look into the work of Stangl and colleagues (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.038). They used an approach that has many similarities to the approach suggested in your manuscript.

The HTC Vive Pro Eye is a good HMD in terms of spatial tracking, display resolution and eye tracking. However, you should consider also using the HTC Vive Wireless Adapter. It allows users to rotate without paying attention to the cable, which can affect immersion and task performance. The wireless adapter can be used without any changes to the experiment design and (in my experience) does not add any noticeable latency.

Some details of the experiment are not sufficiently described: What is the task in the training phase and how does the training phase end? Are the locations of the (visible and invisible) objects always the same? Do the participants receive feedback concerning their response? If not, how do they learn the spatial configuration if only two objects are visible simultaneously? How are performance scores on the VSCT calculated?

It remains unclear what the added benefit of the VSCT compared to the SCT is. If you expect the results on both tests to correlate, why would you choose the more resource intensive and VR-sickness-prone VSCT? Maybe, you could extend you proposed statistical analysis to investigate potential advantages of the VSCT over the SCT.

The described approach of data and code publication is appropriate to ensure accessibility and reproducibility.

Detailed comments:

P3: Why do you use the RAVLT test if you do not expect it to correlate with the VSCT?

P4: What sociodemographic data will be collected and why? Only data that is linked to a specified hypothesis should be collected.

P5: “We select three objects for each scene: two objects near each other and one facing them” Do you mean that the third object is on the opposite side (in the back of the participant if he/she is looking at the two objects near each other)?

P5: Training phase: What exact instructions will be provided to the participants? What is the task and exact purpose?

P5: Figure 1 could be improved. I cannot identify the rug on the floor described in the text. Are the grey circles supposed to be rugs? What is the washed out smudge in the middle of .c and .d?

P6: AV and VR should be fully written out when they are mentioned for the first time.

P6: You do not motivate the investigation of the variables age and sex. This should be based on cited previous findings and formulated hypotheses.

P8: “Ethical approval has already been granted by the relevant ethical committee” To which ethics committee was the research protocol submitted? You describe it in the text above, but it should also be mentioned here.

P8: Consent for publication: Please describe how you will ensure that no individual data will be included. How will the data be anonymized?

Taken together, although the proposed task may not as innovative as the authors describe it (similar approaches have already been used), it may be a meaningful approach to assess spatial memory if the limitations mentioned above are addressed.

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Partly

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Reviewer Expertise:

Spatial cognition, spatial memory, landmarks, virtual reality

Open Res Eur. 2025 Apr 26.

Giorgio Li Pira ¹

P3: “Furthermore, 2D tests do not allow participants to move and explore the environment. This factor is crucial considering the role of proprioceptive feedback and the vestibular system in the encoding and maintenance of spatial configurations in memory.” From your manuscript, it remains unclear to what extent the participants in your task are provided with proprioceptive and vestibular feedback. In the abstract you mention a restriction to rotational exploration. In the introduction, you mention a movable chair (very limited proprioceptive/vestibular feedback). In your ‘Environment Navigation/Locomotion’ description it sounds like participants can use continuous artificial locomotion, which also does not provide proprioceptive or vestibular feedback. If you want to ensure proprioception and vestibular feedback, participants should be able to move towards the objects using natural (room scale) locomotion. The moveable chair is not mentioned in the methods section. Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the level of proprioceptive and vestibular input must be clearly specified. As correctly noted, translational movement is not performed by participants in our study. Instead, participants are seated in a swivel chair that allows them to actively rotate their torso left and right, enabling 360-degree exploration of the environment. These self-generated rotations provide limited but present vestibular and proprioceptive feedback. In particular, yaw-plane movements engage the vestibular system via stimulation of the semicircular canals responsible for detecting angular acceleration (Ehtemam et al., 2012), while proprioceptive input is involved through trunk muscle activity and postural adjustments during chair rotation (Ivanenko et al., 1999). We have updated the text to better specify at page 3 We would also like to clarify that the term “locomotion” is no longer used in the manuscript, except as part of a previous section heading, which has now been renamed to “Exploration” to avoid misunderstanding. As the reviewer correctly points out, natural, translational locomotion is typically necessary to provide robust proprioceptive and vestibular input. However, our approach was deliberately chosen to offer at least partial sensory feedback while maintaining compatibility with a wider range of physical environments. This design makes the software accessible to users who may not have access to large, open spaces required for room-scale locomotion, while still allowing for active sensorimotor exploration through torso rotations. We have now clarified this distinction in the abstract, methods, and discussion sections and emphasized this as a design trade-off that balances ecological validity with practical usability. We also acknowledge that future iterations of the task may integrate full-body locomotion to further enhance sensory realism (Campos et al., 2010); (Chrastil & Warren, 2013).

P3: Why do you use the RAVLT test if you do not expect it to correlate with the VSCT?

Thank you for this important question. We included the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) in our study not because we expected it to correlate with the Visual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT), but precisely to assess discriminant validity. The RAVLT measures verbal episodic memory, while the VSCT targets visuospatial configuration memory—two constructs that are theoretically and empirically distinct. By including the RAVLT and confirming that it does not significantly correlate with performance on the VSCT, we provide evidence that the VSCT measures the specific visuospatial component of the memory. We have updated the text in accordance with P4.

P4: What sociodemographic data will be collected and why? Only data that is linked to a specified hypothesis should be collected. Thank you for this observation. We collected age and gender as sociodemographic variables because both have been shown to influence spatial navigation abilities in previous research (Moffat et al., 2007); (Newhouse et al., 2007). Our primary reason for collecting these variables was to ensure that our control and experimental groups were comparable on key factors that could confound task performance. Although we did not formulate specific hypotheses regarding age or gender effects, their inclusion allows us to confirm group equivalence and strengthen the internal validity of our findings.

The text has been corrected to clarify on page 9

P5: You say that you chose household objects to enhance ecological relevance. However, I am not sure how ecologically relevant these objects are in the highly artificial empty environment that is used in the task. A better argument would be the general familiarity with specific object types. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree with the reviewer that, given the controlled nature of the virtual environment, referring to the use of household objects as enhancing "ecological relevance" may have been misleading. Instead, we have revised the text to emphasize that these objects were chosen for their high familiarity and recognizability, which helps reduce biases due to the novelty of the object, encoding variability, and supports more consistent performance across participants. This change has been reflected in the revised manuscript accordingly at P7.

P5: You removed or controlled the prominent spatial cues that could be used for orientation (sun position, shadows, floor texture), which is very important for this task. However, you should also consider creating an own skybox. It is not easily visible, but the standard skybox in Unity does contain directional differences. The light on the horizon is slightly brighter in some directions and less bright in other directions. Thank you for this valuable observation. We are grateful for you pointing out the potential directional cues present in Unity's default skybox. To minimize the influence of such unintentional orientation cues, we specifically modified the sun position to be directly overhead, simulating a noon-like lighting condition. This adjustment ensures that light distribution remains uniform across all directions, thereby preventing participants from using subtle variations in brightness as a spatial reference. We have now clarified this detail in the manuscript.

Thank you for the question and for allowing us to clarify. Yes, you are absolutely right—the third object is positioned on the opposite side, facing the pair of nearby objects. In other words, if the participant is oriented toward the two adjacent objects, the third object would be located behind them, forming a triangular spatial configuration. We have updated the manuscript to clarify this spatial arrangement at p7

P5: Training phase: What exact instructions will be provided to the participants? What is the task and exact purpose? Thank you for this important point. We have now uploaded the full instructions provided to participants in the Supplementary Material for full transparency. As specified in the manuscript, participants were simply told that they would later be asked to correctly identify the spatial position of each object they had seen during the training phase. No additional information about the specific structure or aim of the task was given, in order to avoid biasing their encoding strategy and to maintain consistency across participants. We have also clarified in the revised manuscript that the task has been modified and no longer includes a separate training phase; instead, participants begin responding to spatial location questions from the outset and learn through trial and error on p7.

P5: The description of the locomotion method(s) requires improvements. Is this a combination of room scale (natural locomotion) and controller-based (artificial) locomotion? If yes, how large is the play space? How fast is the continuous artificial locomotion? Can participants select an artificial locomotion speed between zero and the maximum speed or is it either zero or maximum speed? Why do you write in the abstract that navigation is restricted to rotational exploration if you describe movement here? What are the exact instructions provided to the participants concerning locomotion? Thank you for these detailed questions and the opportunity to clarify. In our study, controller-based (artificial) locomotion was intentionally avoided in order to minimize the risk of motion sickness, especially given the stationary setup. Participants were instructed to explore the environment exclusively through rotational movement, using a swivel chair that allowed them to rotate their torso and head to view the full 360-degree virtual space. We acknowledge that referring to "navigation" may have caused confounding interpretations. To avoid such confusion, we updated the terminology throughout the manuscript—especially in the abstract—to specify that the task involves rotational exploration only. While participants do not engage in translational locomotion, we do consider rotational movement to be a form of movement in its own right, as it activates both the vestibular system and the musculoskeletal system, particularly involving torso and leg muscles during active chair rotation (Ivanenko et al., 1999). Regarding participant instructions: they were explicitly told to explore the environment by rotating the chair, and no other movement methods were allowed. The exact wording of the instructions has been included in the Supplementary Materials for full transparency. We have revised the relevant sections in the abstract and methods to better reflect this setup.

P5: Figure 1 could be improved. I cannot identify the rug on the floor described in the text. Are the grey circles supposed to be rugs? What is the washed out smudge in the middle of .c and .d?

Yes, you are correct—the grey circles are intended to represent the rugs mentioned in the text. We have clarified this by adding a specification in the figure caption to make this clearer to readers. Additionally, we acknowledge that the image quality appears to have been downgraded after submission, which may have contributed to the lack of clarity, particularly the washed-out appearance in panels c and d. To address this, we will provide a higher-resolution version of Figure 1 to ensure all visual elements are clearly visible and accurately represented in the final publication.

P6: AV and VR should be fully written out when they are mentioned for the first time. Thank you for pointing this out. You are absolutely right—"VR" was fully written out on the first mention, while "AV" was introduced later without explanation. We have now corrected this oversight by fully writing out "auditory verbal (AV)" at its first mention in the manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency.

P6: You do not motivate the investigation of the variables age and sex. This should be based on cited previous findings and formulated hypotheses.

Thank you for this observation. We have now addressed this point by adding a clear rationale and relevant citations in the manuscript. Specifically, we note that age and sex have been shown to influence spatial navigation performance, with older adults often exhibiting declines in spatial memory and orientation abilities, and sex differences being reported in strategy use and performance levels (Moffat et al., 2007); (Newhouse et al., 2007). While we did not formulate specific hypotheses regarding age and sex effects on task performance, these variables were collected to allow us to control for potential group differences and to explore their influence in an exploratory manner. This addition has been integrated into the revised manuscript. P8: “Ethical approval has already been granted by the relevant ethical committee” To which ethics committee was the research protocol submitted? You describe it in the text above, but it should also be mentioned here. This has now been addressed by explicitly stating the name of the ethics committee in the relevant sentence. The revised sentence now reads:

“Ethical approval has already been granted by the [Name of Committee] Ethics Committee,” in alignment with the description provided earlier in the manuscript.

P8: Consent for publication: Please describe how you will ensure that no individual data will be included. How will the data be anonymized?

Thank you for the comment. We have now addressed this point by adding a description to the Methods section specifying that all data collected will be fully anonymized prior to analysis and publication. No identifying personal information (e.g., names, contact details, or video recordings) will be collected or stored. Participants are identified only by randomized numeric codes, and all reported results will be presented at the group level, ensuring that no individual can be identified in any publication or presentation of the data.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data associated with this article.

Extended data

Code availability

[ref-74] Aguirre GK, D'Esposito E: Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 9):1613–1628. 10.1093/brain/122.9.1613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-3] Bacon AM, Handley SJ, Dennis I, et al. : Reasoning strategies: the role of working memory and verbal-spatial ability. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2008;20(6):1065–1086. 10.1080/09541440701807559 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-4] Bartlett KA, Camba JD: An argument for visualization technologies in spatial skills assessment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). LNCS,2022;13328:30–39. 10.1007/978-3-031-05657-4_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-5] Bayramova R, Valori I, McKenna-Plumley PE, et al. : The role of vision and proprioception in self-motion encoding: an Immersive Virtual Reality study. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021;83(7):2865–2878. 10.3758/s13414-021-02344-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-48] Brooks JX, Cullen KE: Early vestibular processing does not discriminate active from passive self-motion if there is a discrepancy between predicted and actual proprioceptive feedback. J Neurophysiol. 2014;111(12):2465–2478. 10.1152/jn.00600.2013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-49] Burles CF: The development of a practical measure of environmental-scale spatial ability: the spatial configuration task. University of calgary PRISM repository.2014. 10.11575/PRISM/28057 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-7] Burles F, Slone E, Iaria G: Dorso-medial and ventro-lateral functional specialization of the human retrosplenial complex in spatial updating and orienting. Brain Struct Funct. 2017;222(3):1481–1493. 10.1007/s00429-016-1288-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-75] Casale J, Browne T, Murray IV, et al. : Physiology, vestibular system. J Learn Disabil. 2023;7(2):41–42. [Google Scholar]

[ref-59] Chance SS, Gaunet F, Beall AC, et al. : Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: the contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 1998;7(2):168–178. 10.1162/105474698565659 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-10] Cohen CA, Hegarty M: Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: a new spatial thinking test. Learn Individ Differ. 2012;22(6):868–874. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-51] Cullen KE, Zobeiri OA: Proprioception and the predictive sensing of active self-motion. Curr Opin Physiol. 2021;20:29–38. 10.1016/j.cophys.2020.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-76] da Costa RQM, Pompeu JE, Moretto E, et al. : Two immersive virtual reality tasks for the assessment of spatial orientation in older adults with and without cognitive impairment: concurrent validity, group comparison, and accuracy results. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2022;28(5):460–472. 10.1017/S1355617721000655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-77] Ehinger BV, Fischer P, Gert AL, et al. : Kinesthetic and vestibular information modulate alpha activity during spatial navigation: a mobile EEG study. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8(1):71. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-54] Ehtemam F, Forbes PA, Schouten AC, et al. : Galvanic vestibular stimulation elicits consistent head-neck motion in seated subjects. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(7):1978–1984. 10.1109/TBME.2012.2195178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-63] Epstein RA, Patai EZ, Julian JB, et al. : The cognitive map in humans: spatial navigation and beyond. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20(11):1504–1513. 10.1038/nn.4656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-14] Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, et al. : Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-15] Fetsch CR, Turner AH, DeAngelis GC, et al. : Dynamic reweighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. J Neurosci. 2009;29(49):15601–15612. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2574-09.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-16] Fisher ML, Meredith T, Gray M: Sex differences in mental rotation ability are a consequence of procedure and artificiality of stimuli. Evol Psychol Sci. 2018;4(2):124–133. 10.1007/s40806-017-0120-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-18] Gehrke L, Iversen JR, Makeig S, et al. : The Invisible Maze Task (IMT): interactive exploration of sparse virtual environments to investigate action-driven formation of spatial representations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). LNAI,2018;11034:293–310. 10.1007/978-3-319-96385-3_20 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-22] Hartman NW, Connolly PE, Gilger JW, et al. : Virtual Reality-Based spatial skills assessment and its role in computer graphics education. ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators Program on - SIGGRAPH ’ 06. 2006;46. 10.1145/1179295.1179342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-23] He C, Chrastil ER, Hegarty M: A new psychometric task measuring spatial perspective taking in ambulatory Virtual Reality. Front Virtual Real. 2022;3: 971502. 10.3389/frvir.2022.971502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-24] Hegarty M, Montello DR, Richardson AE, et al. : Spatial abilities at different scales: individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence. 2006;34(2):151–176. 10.1016/J.INTELL.2005.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-25] Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, et al. : Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence. 2002;30(5):425–447. 10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00116-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-66] HTC Corporation : VIVE Pro Eye specifications. 2021. Reference Source

[ref-28] Isaacs EB, Vargha-Khadem F: Differential course of development of spatial and verbal memory span: a normative study. Br J Dev Psychol. 1989;7(4):377–380. 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1989.tb00814.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-67] Ivanenko YP, Viaud-Delmon I, Sémont A, et al. : Eye movements during torso rotations in labyrinthine-defective subjects. J Vestib Res. 1999;9(6):401–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-31] Jansen P: The dissociation of small- and large-scale spatial abilities in school-age children. Percept Mot Skills. 2009;109(2):357–361. 10.2466/PMS.109.2.357-361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-32] Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, et al. : Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying Simulator Sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1993;3(3):203–220. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-33] Kessels RPC, van den Berg E, Ruis C, et al. : The backward span of the corsi block-tapping task and its association with the WAIS-III digit span. Assessment. 2008;15(4):426–434. 10.1177/1073191108315611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-36] Linn MC, Petersen AC: Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev. 1985;56(6):1479–98. 10.2307/1130467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-37] Lu X, Zhu MJH, Risko EF: Semantic partitioning facilitates memory for object location through category-partition cueing. Memory. 2024;32(3):339–357. 10.1080/09658211.2024.2319363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-39] McLaren-Gradinaru M, Burles F, Dhillon I, et al. : A novel training program to improve human spatial orientation: preliminary findings. Front Hum Neurosci. 2020;14:5. 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-42] Montana JI, Tuena C, Serino S, et al. : Neurorehabilitation of spatial memory using Virtual Environments: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10): 1516. 10.3390/JCM8101516 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-43] Nardini M, Jones P, Bedford R, et al. : Development of cue integration in human navigation. Curr Biol. 2008;18(9):689–693. 10.1016/J.CUB.2008.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-64] OpenAI : ChatGPT [Large language model].2025. Reference Source

[ref-68] O’keefe J, Nadel L: Précis of O’Keefe & Nadel’s The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Behav Brain Sci. 1979;2(4):487–494. 10.1017/S0140525X00063949 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-46] Peaker A, Stewart LE: Rey’s auditory verbal learning test — a review. In: Developments in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. Springer US,1989;219–236. 10.1007/978-1-4757-9996-5_18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-47] Pizlo Z: 3D Shape: its unique place in visual perception. The MIT Press,2008. 10.7551/mitpress/7705.001.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-69] Sheeran WM, Ahmed OJ: The neural circuitry supporting successful spatial navigation despite variable movement speeds. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;108:821–833. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-62] Sneider JT, Hamilton DA, Cohen-Gilbert JE, et al. : Sex differences in spatial navigation and perception in human adolescents and emerging adults. Behav Processes. 2015;111:42–50. 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.11.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-60] Souman JL, Frissen I, Sreenivasa MN, et al. : Walking straight into circles. Curr Biol. 2009;19(18):1538–42. 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-50] Subrahmanyam K, Greenfield PM: Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1994;15(1):13–32. 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-70] Suri S, Topiwala A, Filippini N, et al. : Distinct resting-state functional connections associated with episodic and visuospatial memory in older adults. Neuroimage. 2017;159:122–130. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-71] Tolman TC: Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev. 1948;55(4):189–208. 10.1037/h0061626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-65] Umiltà AM: Training human topographical orientation in a virtual environment: the behavioural and neurological mechanisms. (Doctoral thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada). University of Calgary,2021. Reference Source [Google Scholar]

[ref-45] Umiltà AM, Li Pira G, Tessari A, et al. : Validation of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): a novel virtual reality-based tool for assessing cognitive map formation abilities.2024. 10.17605/OSF.IO/3DMSY [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[ref-52] Uttal DH, Meadow NG, Tipton E, et al. : The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(2):352–402. 10.1037/a0028446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-53] Ventura M, Shute V, Wright T, et al. : An investigation of the validity of the Virtual Spatial Navigation Assessment. Front Psychol. 2013;4:852. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00852 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-72] VIVE European Union: Discover virtual reality beyond imagination. (n.d.); Retrieved April 18, 2025. Reference Source

[ref-73] Weisberg SM, Newcombe NS: How do (some) people make a cognitive map? Routes, places, and working memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2016;42(5):768–785. 10.1037/xlm0000200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[ref-58] Yue J: Spatial visualization by realistic 3D views. Engineering Design Graphics Journal. 2008;72(1):28–38. 10.18260/1-2--1619 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Pre-protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities

Alberto Massimiliano Umiltà

Giorgio Li Pira

Ford Burles

Giovanni Ottoboni

Alessia Tessari

Roles

Version Changes

Revised. Amendments from Version 2

Abstract

Introduction

Strategies of spatial orientation and navigation

Validation of a new 3D spatial task

Methods

Open science commitment

Participants

Informed consent

Materials

Virtual Spatial Configuration Task VSCT

Figure 1.

Figure 2. Figure depicting the timelie of the experimental procedure.

Plan of analysis

Independent samples t-test

Correlation analysis

Expected results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

Ethics approval

Consent to participate

Consent for publication

Funding Statement

Availability of data and materials

Extended data

Authors' contributions

References

Reviewer response for version 3

Jozsef Katona

Roles

Reviewer response for version 3

Alastair D Smith

Roles

Reviewer response for version 2

Laura Miola

Roles

Reviewer response for version 2

Meytal Wilf

Roles

Reviewer response for version 2

Jozsef Katona

Roles

Giorgio Li Pira

Reviewer response for version 2

Marta Matamala-Gomez

Roles

References

Giorgio Li Pira

Reviewer response for version 2

Simon Lhuillier

Roles

Reviewer response for version 1

Alastair D Smith

Roles

Giorgio Li Pira

Reviewer response for version 1

David Uttal

Roles

References

Giorgio Li Pira

Reviewer response for version 1

Simon Lhuillier

Roles

References

Giorgio Li Pira

Reviewer response for version 1

Laura Miola

Roles

References

Giorgio Li Pira