Abstract
Three experiments explored whether response mode differences in perspective taking result from different spatial representations or different retrieval processes. Participants learned object locations and then, while blindfolded, pointed to or verbally described object locations from perspectives aligned or misaligned with their facing direction and aligned or misaligned with the learning perspective. Pointing was facilitated from the perspective aligned with the body during testing. Similar facilitation occurred when verbally labeling, but only when conducted in the context of pointing (e.g., after pointing). Without this pointing context, or after third-person strategy instructions, the effect of body alignment was eliminated for verbal responses. Pointing was less responsive to context and strategy. Across all conditions, performance was facilitated for the learning perspective. Taken together, these experiments indicate that response mode differences are due to differences in the retrieval process, which varies with strategy, rather than differences in the organization of the underlying spatial memory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Avraamides, M. N., Ioannidou, L. M., & Kyranidou, M. N. (2007). Locating targets from imagined perspectives: Comparing labeling with pointing responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1660–1679.
Avraamides, M. N., Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., & Golledge, R. G. (2004). Use of cognitive vs. perceptual heading during imagined locomotion depends on response mode. Psychological Science, 15, 403–408.
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.
Diwadkar, V. A., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychological Science, 8, 302–307.
Easton, R. D., & Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 483–500.
Kelly, J. W., Avraamides, M. N., & Loomis, J. M. (2007). Sensorimotor alignment effects in the learning environment and in novel environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 1092–1107.
Kelly, J. W., & McNamara, T. P. (2008). Spatial memories of virtual environments: How egocentric experience, intrinsic structure, and extrinsic structure interact. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 322–327.
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.
May, M. (2004). Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 163–206.
McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 589–595.
Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 162–170.
Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 142–157.
Philbeck, J. W., Loomis, J. M., & Beall, A. C. (1997). Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 601–612.
Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447–1455.
Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1157–1165.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., McNamara, T. P., Shelton, A. L., & Carr, W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 215–226.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 274–310.
Waller, D., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Orientation specificity and spatial updating of memories for layouts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 1051–1063.
Wang, R. F. (2004). Action, verbal response, and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 94, 185–192.
Werner, S., & Schmidt, K. (1999). Environmental reference systems for large-scale spaces. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 1, 447–473.
Wraga, M. (2003). Thinking outside the body: An advantage for spatial updating during imagined versus physical self-rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 993–1005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 2-R01-MH57868.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kelly, J.W., McNamara, T.P. Response mode differences in perspective taking: Differences in representation or differences in retrieval?. Memory & Cognition 36, 863–872 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.863
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.863