Spatial Orientation in a Cue-Target Task: Effects of Distance, Cue Direction, and Swimming Training Background

This study examined visually guided spatial updating and endpoint estimation under visual-only conditions and assessed whether performance varied by distance, cue direction, and swimming training background. Thirty-six right-handed male participants aged 18-20 years, including expert swimmers and amateur controls, completed a cue-target spatial orientation task with two distance conditions, short and long, and four cue directions, N, E, S, and W. Movement time, spatial error distance, and proportional movement time were analyzed using 2 × 2 × 4 mixed-design repeated-measures ANOVAs. Bayesian independent-samples comparisons were further conducted to quantify evidence for the null hypothesis of no robust group differences. The results indicated that task demands were the main determinants of performance. Compared with the short-distance condition, the long-distance condition yielded longer movement time, larger spatial errors, and higher proportional movement time, suggesting increased demands on spatial updating and movement execution. Cue direction also affected proportional movement time and spatial error distance, indicating direction-specific differences in visual cue integration and reference-frame transformation. By contrast, no robust overall group differences were found across the three primary behavioral measures, and the Bayesian analyses generally supported the null model. Although a significant Group × Distance interaction was observed for spatial error distance, this interaction reflected a group-related difference in the extent to which error increased from the short- to the long-distance condition, rather than evidence for a consistent expert advantage. Overall, performance in the present visual-only cue-target task was driven mainly by visuospatial updating load, attentional allocation, and task structure, whereas swimming-related expertise was not consistently expressed under the current task constraints.