Literature DB >> 16957955

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

Mark May1.   

Abstract

Two experiments examined spatial knowledge access after imagined perspective switches in everyday environments. Blindfolded volunteers had to point to target objects in a well-known surrounding while imagining being repositioned into different spatial perspectives defined as self-rotations of the observer in the horizontal plane (0 degrees , 45 degrees , and 135 degrees ). Testing was either conducted in the space the target locations had been learned in (actual room testing), or while participants were away from this room, but should imagine being situated there (remote room testing). Experiment 1, in which perspective switches were tested on a trial-to-trial basis, revealed increases in pointing latency and error as a function of the amount of angular disparity between real and imagined perspective under actual and remote room conditions. Experiment 2, in which knowledge access was tested in blocks of multiple trials per perspective, showed increases in pointing latency with angular disparity for actual space testing, and to a much lesser degree for remote space testing. Implications of both findings for theoretical accounts of knowledge access after imaginal perspective switches are discussed, and recommendations for using different testing methods and settings are given.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16957955     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-006-0083-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  21 in total

1.  Switching between environmental representations in memory.

Authors:  James R Brockmole; Ranxiao Frances Wang
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-04

2.  Orientation specificity and spatial updating of memories for layouts.

Authors:  David Waller; Daniel R Montello; Anthony E Richardson; Mary Hegarty
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation.

Authors:  J J Rieser
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations.

Authors:  M Wraga; S H Creem; D R Proffitt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge.

Authors:  R D Easton; M J Sholl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Orientation in cognitive maps.

Authors:  D L Hintzman; C S O'Dell; D R Arndt
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1981-04       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Active navigation and orientation-free spatial representations.

Authors:  Hong-Jin Sun; George S W Chan; Jennifer L Campos
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-01

8.  Functional equivalence of spatial representations derived from vision and language: evidence from allocentric judgments.

Authors:  Marios N Avraamides; Jack M Loomis; Roberta L Klatzky; Reginald G Golledge
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Spatial memory and perspective taking.

Authors:  Amy L Shelton; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-04

10.  Imagery, action, and young children's spatial orientation: it's not being there that counts, it's what one has in mind.

Authors:  J J Rieser; A E Garing; M F Young
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  1994-10
View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Multiple systems of spatial memory and action.

Authors:  Marios N Avraamides; Jonathan W Kelly
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2007-09-27

2.  Where you are affects what you can easily imagine: Environmental geometry elicits sensorimotor interference in remote perspective taking.

Authors:  Bernhard E Riecke; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-08-09

3.  Spatial memory in the real world: long-term representations of everyday environments.

Authors:  Steven A Marchette; Ashok Yerramsetti; Thomas J Burns; Amy L Shelton
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-11

4.  Facilitated pointing to remembered objects in front: evidence for egocentric retrieval or for spatial priming?

Authors:  Jonathan W Kelly; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-04

5.  Egocentric updating of remote locations.

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

6.  Egocentric representation acquired from offline map learning.

Authors:  Chengli Xiao; Lei Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

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

Review 8.  Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other's affordances: providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others.

Authors:  Sarah H Creem-Regehr; Kyle T Gagnon; Michael N Geuss; Jeanine K Stefanucci
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Virtual Orientation Overrides Physical Orientation to Define a Reference Frame in Spatial Updating.

Authors:  Qiliang He; Timothy P McNamara
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-07-03       Impact factor: 3.169

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.