Literature DB >> 15582626

Action, verbal response and spatial reasoning.

Ranxiao Frances Wang1.   

Abstract

Studies have shown that perception of distance, orientation and size can be dissociated from action tasks. The action system seems to possess more veridical, unbiased information than the perceptual/verbal system. The current study examines the nature of the distinction between action and verbal responses in a spatial reasoning task. Participants imagined themselves facing different orientations and either pointed to where other objects would be, or verbally reported their egocentric directions (e.g., "50 degrees to my left"). When using pointing responses, RT and error increased as a function of the angular disparity between the imagined heading and their actual heading. However, when using verbal responses, performance was not affected by angular disparity, suggesting that participants knew the direction of the targets from the imagined perspective but could not point to them directly. The verbal and action systems have fundamentally different information or processes rather than quantitatively different ones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15582626     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  7 in total

Review 1.  Building a cognitive map by assembling multiple path integration systems.

Authors:  Ranxiao Frances Wang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-06

2.  Imaginal repositioning in everyday environments: effects of testing method and setting.

Authors:  Mark May
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2006-09-07

3.  Expectation affects verbal judgments but not reaches to visually perceived egocentric distances.

Authors:  Christopher C Pagano; Robert W Isenhower
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-04

4.  Large manual pointing errors, but accurate verbal reports, for indications of target azimuth.

Authors:  John Philbeck; Jesse Sargent; Joeanna Arthur; Steve Dopkins
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Response mode differences in perspective taking: differences in representation or differences in retrieval?

Authors:  Jonathan W Kelly; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2008-06

6.  Egocentric updating of remote locations.

Authors:  Marios N Avraamides; Alexia Galati; Christothea Papadopoulou
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-11-30

Review 7.  Visual perspective taking and laterality decisions: Problems and possible solutions.

Authors:  Mark May; Mike Wendt
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.