Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The study examined whether people update remote spatial locations in unfamiliar environments during physical movement. Participants learned a layout of objects from one perspective and carried out perspective-taking trials after physically rotating to a new perspective in either the same room as learning or in an adjacent room. Prior to rotation in the adjacent room participants were instructed to visualize the objects as being around them. Responses to perspective-taking trials involved either pointing or verbal labeling. In both testing environments, participants pointed more efficiently from imagined perspectives aligned with either the initial learning perspective or their current facing orientation than from a novel imagined perspective; this indicates that they had updated the encoded spatial relations during the physical rotation and treated remote objects as immediate. Differences in performance among perspectives were less pronounced for verbal labeling in both environments, suggesting that this response mode is more flexibly used from imagined perspectives.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Avraamides, M. N., Ioannidou, L. M., & Kyranidou, M. N. (2007). Locating targets from imagined perspectives: Comparing labelling with pointing responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1660–1679. CrossRef
Avraamides, M. N., & Kelly, J. W. (2008). Multiple systems of spatial memory and action. Cognitive Processing, 9, 93–106.
Avraamides, M. N., & Sofroniou, S. G. (2006). Spatial frameworks in imagined navigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 510–515. CrossRef
De Vega, M., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2001). Updating spatial layouts mediated by pointing and labelling under physical and imaginary rotation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 369–393.
Epstein, R. A, Higgins, J. S., Jablonski, K., & Feiler, A. M. (2007). Visual scene processing in familiar and unfamiliar environments. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 3670–3683.
Garden, S., Cornoldi, C., & Logie, R. H. (2002). Visuo-spatial working memory in navigation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 35–50. CrossRef
Kelly, J. W., & McNamara, T. P. (2008). Response mode differences in perspective taking: Differences in representation or differences in retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 36, 863–872. CrossRef
Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., Beall, A. C., Chance, S. S., & Golledge, R. G. (1998). Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9, 293–298. CrossRef
McNamara, T. P. (2003). How are the locations of objects in the environment represented in memory? In. C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition III: Routes and navigation, human memory and learning, spatial representation and spatial reasoning, LNAI 2685 (pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Rieser, J. J., Guth, D. A., & Hill, E. W. (1986). Sensitivity to perspective structure while walking without vision. Perception, 15, 173–188.
Rodrigo, M. J., de Vega, M., & Padrón, I. (2012). Common retrieval processes in producers and comprehenders of spatial information in a non-interactive task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 342–358. CrossRef
Wang, R. F., & Brockmole, J. R. (2003b). Simultaneous spatial updating in nested environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 981–986. CrossRef
- Egocentric updating of remote locations
Marios N. Avraamides
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg