Abstract
Giving directions or describing an environment often requires assuming perspectives other than one’s own. We employed a spatial perspective-taking task to investigate how describing familiar versus novel perspectives affects subsequent memory. One participant (the director) viewed a display of objects from a single perspective and described the display to another participant (the matcher) from a perspective that varied by 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, or 180° from the viewing perspective. Following the description, we assessed the director’s memory for the display, using judgments of relative direction, scene recognition, and map drawing. The participants imagined and recognized familiar views faster and/or more accurately than novel views. Moreover, different tasks showed different degrees of facilitation for the visually perceived and described views, suggesting multiple representations for different aspects of spatial memory. These findings emphasize the importance of understanding distinctions among spatial experiences and underscore differences in the tasks used to probe spatial memory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen, R. A., Snyder, L. H., Bradley, D. C., &Xing, J. (1997). Multimodal representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex and its use in planning movements.Annual Review of Neuroscience,20, 303–330.
Clark, H. H., &Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process.Cognition,22, 1–39.
Colby, C. L., &Goldberg, M. E. (1999). Space and attention in parietal cortex.Annual Review of Neuroscience,22, 319–349.
Ehrich, V., &Koster, C. (1983). Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch.Discourse Processes,6, 169–195.
Garrod, S., &Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination.Cognition,27, 181–218.
Graziano, M. S. A., Yap, G. S., &Gross, C. G. (1994). Coding of visual space by premotor neurons.Science,266, 1054–1057.
Isaacs, E. A., &Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 26–37.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.),Language and space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Linde, C., &Labov, W. (1975). Spatial structure as a site for the study of language and thought.Language,51, 924–939.
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. (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2685, pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Mou, W., &McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 162–170.
Palmer, S. E. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shipp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation.Cognition,47, 1–24.
Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about locations.Discourse Processes,20, 219–247.
Schober, M. F. (1998). How addressees affect spatial perspective choice in dialogue. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.),Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 231–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 102–106.
Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (2001a). Systems of spatial reference in human memory.Cognitive Psychology,43, 274–310.
Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (2001b). Visual memories from nonvisual experiences.Psychological Science,12, 343–347.
Shelton, A. L., &McNamara, T. P. (2004). Orientation and perspective dependence in route and survey learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 158–170.
Taylor, H. A., &Tversky, B. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 261–292.
Taylor, H. A., &Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions.Journal of Memory & Language,35, 371–391.
Thomson, D. M., &Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology,86, 255–262.
Waterman, S., &Gordon, D. (1984). A quantitative-comparative approach to analysis of distortion in mental maps.Professional Geographer,36, 326–337.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this article was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH57868 and MH12638.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shelton, A.L., McNamara, T.P. Spatial memory and perspective taking. Memory & Cognition 32, 416–426 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195835
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195835