The basic observation: It takes very little effort and exposure to remember places (spatial information) in contrast to taking in linear heavy processed information from writing and numbers (e.g. "facts").
Combine these two and you have a powerful way navigating through the information space itself.
If you look at it, we are confined to rectangular boxes, fancy interactive books enhanced by moving pictures, audio and some very limited tactile feedback but nevertheless bound by the superstructure of a static tiny detail in our overall spatial awareness.
Of course we are now so used to the endless iterations of rectangular boxes that we are extraordinarily proficient at extracting a lot of richness/information from that: in scrolling, clicking, typing, imagining ... I'm reminded by the scene of "The Matrix" where Cipher let Neo glimpse the Matrix code on his screens: "You get used to it, I don't even see the code. All I see is blond, brunette, redhead."[1]
IIRC once a 50s western movie was shown to a rural "test" public from the Eurasian steppe some of who saw a moving picture for the very first time. The reactions were mostly enthusiastic during slow "panorama shots" but the audience reacted very agitated in "close-ups" or "medium shots" where e.g. in the heat of the action the horse's legs were "cut off".
We take it as given that we learn the language of movies and find them at times 'realistic' and 'immersive' when in fact contrasted to 'reality' itself qbit by qbit they are basically - with some rounding error - as highly processed as books and thereby rely heavily on our imagination filling the gaps.
While we are on the subject of of naïve visions, another area which isn't appreciated enough imho is the immense dexterity of our hands as with "vision processing" the devices themselves are glued on our dexterity of "exact" and "repetitive" moves, there is too little wiggle room for organic experimenting, refining and expression like one would naturally do for a musical instrument.