Literature DB >> 23307504

On the relation between spontaneous perspective taking and other visuospatial processes.

Jan Zwickel1, Hermann J Müller.   

Abstract

Common processes and representations engaged by visuospatial tasks were investigated by looking at four frequently used visuospatial research paradigms, the aim being to contribute to a better understanding of which specific processes are addressed in the different paradigms compared. In particular, the relation between spontaneous and instructed perspective taking, as well as mental rotation of body-part/non-body-part objects, was investigated. To this end, participants watched animations that have been shown to lead to spontaneous perspective taking. While they were watching these animations, participants were asked to explicitly adopt another perspective (Experiment 1), perform a mental object rotation task that involved a non-body-part object (Experiment 2), or perform a mental rotation of a body-part object (Experiment 3). Patterns of interference between the tasks, reflected in the reaction time patterns, showed that spontaneous and instructed perspective taking rely on similar representational elements to encode orientation. By contrast, no such overlap was found between spontaneous perspective taking and the rotation of non-body-part objects. Also, no overlap in orientation representation was evident with mental body-part rotations. Instead of an overlap in orientation representations, the results suggest that spontaneous perspective taking and the mental rotation of body parts rely on similar-presumably, motor-processes. These findings support the view that motor processes are involved in perspective taking and mental rotation of body parts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23307504     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-012-0283-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  30 in total

1.  The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference.

Authors:  Klaus Kessler; Lindsey Anne Thomson
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2009-09-26

Review 2.  Is the body in the eye of the beholder? Visual processing of bodies in individuals with anomalous anatomical sensory and motor features.

Authors:  Corrado Corradi-Dell'Acqua; Alessia Tessari
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects.

Authors:  R N Shepard; J Metzler
Journal:  Science       Date:  1971-02-19       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Seeing it their way: evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see.

Authors:  Dana Samson; Ian A Apperly; Jason J Braithwaite; Benjamin J Andrews; Sarah E Bodley Scott
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Imagined rotations of self versus objects: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Maryjane Wraga; Jennifer M Shephard; Jessica A Church; Souheil Inati; Stephen M Kosslyn
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2005-01-20       Impact factor: 3.139

6.  Mental rotation of objects versus hands: neural mechanisms revealed by positron emission tomography.

Authors:  S M Kosslyn; G J DiGirolamo; W L Thompson; N M Alpert
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Seeing the world through another person's eyes: simulating selective attention via action observation.

Authors:  Alexandra Frischen; Daniel Loach; Steven P Tipper
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2009-03-17

8.  Agency attribution and visuospatial perspective taking.

Authors:  Jan Zwickel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-12

9.  Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking.

Authors:  Barbara Tversky; Bridgette Martin Hard
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2008-12-03

10.  The Two Forms of Visuo-Spatial Perspective Taking are Differently Embodied and Subserve Different Spatial Prepositions.

Authors:  Klaus Kessler; Hannah Rutherford
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-12-06
View more
  2 in total

1.  The role of potential agents in making spatial perspective taking social.

Authors:  Amy M Clements-Stephens; Katarina Vasiljevic; Alexandra J Murray; Amy L Shelton
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.