Literature DB >> 16359653

Differential developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory.

Marko Nardini1, Neil Burgess, Kate Breckenridge, Janette Atkinson.   

Abstract

We studied the development of spatial frames of reference in children aged 3-6 years, who retrieved hidden toys from an array of identical containers bordered by landmarks under four conditions. By moving the child and/or the array between presentation and test, we varied the consistency of the hidden toy with (i) the body, and (ii) the testing room. The toy's position always remained consistent with (iii) the array and bordering landmarks. We found separate, additive performance advantages for consistency with body and room. These effects were already present at 3 years. A striking finding was that the room effect, which implies allocentric representations of the room and/or egocentric representations updated by self-motion, was much stronger in the youngest children than the body effect, which implies purely egocentric representations. Children as young as 3 years therefore had, and greatly favoured, spatial representations that were not purely egocentric. Viewpoint-independent recall based only on the array and bordering landmarks emerged at 5 years. There was no evidence that this later-developing ability, which implies object-referenced (intrinsic) representations, depended on verbal encodings. These findings indicate that core components of adult spatial competence, including parallel egocentric and nonegocentric representations of space, are present as early as 3 years. These are supplemented by later-developing object-referenced representations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16359653     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.09.005

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


  35 in total

1.  Are allocentric spatial reference frames compatible with theories of Enactivism?

Authors:  Sabine U König; Caspar Goeke; Tobias Meilinger; Peter König
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-08-02

2.  Pointing at targets by children with congenital and transient blindness.

Authors:  Florence Gaunet; Miriam Ittyerah; Yves Rossetti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-10-20       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Beyond core knowledge: Natural geometry.

Authors:  Elizabeth Spelke; Sang Ah Lee; Véronique Izard
Journal:  Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-05-01

4.  Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans.

Authors:  Peggy Li; Linda Abarbanell; Lila Gleitman; Anna Papafragou
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2011-04-08

5.  Producing Spatial Words Is Not Enough: Understanding the Relation Between Language and Spatial Cognition.

Authors:  Hilary E Miller; Haley A Vlach; Vanessa R Simmering
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2016-11-08

6.  Development of memory for spatial locations and object/place associations in infant rhesus macaques with and without neonatal hippocampal lesions.

Authors:  Shala N Blue; Andy M Kazama; Jocelyne Bachevalier
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 2.892

7.  Language supports young children's use of spatial relations to remember locations.

Authors:  Hilary E Miller; Rebecca Patterson; Vanessa R Simmering
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2016-02-18

8.  Development of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations from childhood to elderly age.

Authors:  Gennaro Ruggiero; Ortensia D'Errico; Tina Iachini
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-03-25

9.  Cognitive cladistics and cultural override in Hominid spatial cognition.

Authors:  Daniel B M Haun; Christian J Rapold; Josep Call; Gabriele Janzen; Stephen C Levinson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-11-01       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Using eye-tracking to understand relations between visual attention and language in children's spatial skills.

Authors:  Hilary E Miller; Heather L Kirkorian; Vanessa R Simmering
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.