{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017857142857142856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.136363636363637, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Knowledge of landmark configuration does not improve metric performance in virtual environment navigation

Cognitive maps can be organised topological or topographical. In the first case, places and their adjacency are stored (knowledge of configuration) and in the latter case also all coordinates of the known places are stored. Metric information can be inferred from path integration depth perception configurational landmark knowledge (global metric embedding,MDS) We investigated if metric information which does not originate from path integration improves the performance in pointing and distance production. More specifically, does a central landmark, which visually connects different parts of the composed environment, but is unreachable, improve the metric representation?