to orient themselves, and find their way around using landmarks. This ability to "prioritize objects and regions in complex scenes for selection (and) recognition" was labeled by Chun and Jiang in 1998. Landmarks give people guidance by activating "learned associations between the global context and target locations." Mallot and Gillner (2000) showed that subjects learned an association between a specific landmark and the direction of a turn, thereby furthering the relationship between associations and landmarks. Shelton and McNamara (2001) succinctly summed up why landmarks, as markers, are so helpful: "location...cannot be described without making reference to the orientation of the observer." People use both the layout of a particular space and the presence of orienting landmarks in order to navigate. Psychologists have yet to explain whether layout affects landmarks or if landmarks determine the boundaries of a layout. Because of this, the concept suffers from a chicken and the egg paradox. McNamara has found that subjects use "clusters of landmarks as intrinsic frames of reference," which only confuses the issue further. People perceive objects in their environment relative to other objects in that same environment. Landmarks and layout are complementary systems for spatial recall, but it is unknown how these two systems interact when both types of information are available. As a result, people have to make certain assumptions about the interaction between the two systems. For example, cognitive maps are not "absolute" but rather, as anyone can attest, are "used to provide a default...(which) modulated according to...task demands." Psychologists also think that cognitive maps are instance based, which accounts for "discriminative matching to past experience." This field has traditionally been hampered by confounding variables, such as cost and the potential for previous exposure to an experimental environment. Technological advancements, including those in virtual reality technology, have made findings more accessible. Virtual reality affords experimenters the luxury of extreme control over their test environment. Any variable can be manipulated, including things that would not be possible in reality. Virtual reality During a 2006 study researchers designed three different virtual towns, each of which had its own "unique road layout and a unique set of five stores." However, the overall footprint of the different maps was exactly the same size, "80 sq. units." In this experiment, participants had to partake in two different sets of trials. A study conducted at the University of Maryland compared the effect of different levels of