Literature DB >> 27180248

Frames of reference and categorical/coordinate spatial relations in a "what was where" task.

Francesco Ruotolo1,2, Tina Iachini3, Gennaro Ruggiero3, Ineke J M van der Ham4, Albert Postma5.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore how people use egocentric (i.e., with respect to their body) and allocentric (i.e., with respect to another element in the environment) references in combination with coordinate (metric) or categorical (abstract) spatial information to identify a target element. Participants were asked to memorize triads of 3D objects or 2D figures, and immediately or after a delay of 5 s, they had to verbally indicate what was the object/figure: (1) closest/farthest to them (egocentric coordinate task); (2) on their right/left (egocentric categorical task); (3) closest/farthest to another object/figure (allocentric coordinate task); (4) on the right/left of another object/figure (allocentric categorical task). Results showed that the use of 2D figures favored categorical judgments over the coordinate ones with either an egocentric or an allocentric reference frame, whereas the use of 3D objects specifically favored egocentric coordinate judgments rather than the allocentric ones. Furthermore, egocentric judgments were more accurate than allocentric judgments when the response was Immediate rather than delayed and 3D objects rather than 2D figures were used. This pattern of results is discussed in the light of the functional roles attributed to the frames of reference and spatial relations by relevant theories of visuospatial processing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Categorical/coordinate spatial relations; Egocentric/allocentric frames of reference; Ventral stream; Verbal response

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27180248      PMCID: PMC4978766          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4672-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  53 in total

1.  Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects.

Authors:  R Ellis; M Tucker
Journal:  Br J Psychol       Date:  2000-11

Review 2.  You can play 20 questions with nature and win: categorical versus coordinate spatial relations as a case study.

Authors:  Stephen M Kosslyn
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 3.139

3.  Sensorimotor alignment effects in the learning environment and in novel environments.

Authors:  Jonathan W Kelly; Marios N Avraamides; Jack M Loomis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Categorical and coordinate spatial processing in the imagery domain investigated by rTMS.

Authors:  Luigi Trojano; Massimiliano Conson; Raffaele Maffei; Dario Grossi
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-03-09       Impact factor: 3.139

5.  The relationship between allocentric and egocentric frames of reference and categorical and coordinate spatial information processing.

Authors:  Francesco Ruotolo; Ineke J M van der Ham; Tina Iachini; Albert Postma
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  The two-visual-systems hypothesis and the perspectival features of visual experience.

Authors:  Robert T Foley; Robert L Whitwell; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2015-03-25

7.  Egocentric/allocentric and coordinate/categorical haptic encoding in blind people.

Authors:  Gennaro Ruggiero; Francesco Ruotolo; Tina Iachini
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2012-08

Review 8.  Lateralized perception: the role of attention in spatial relation processing.

Authors:  Ineke J M van der Ham; Albert Postma; Bruno Laeng
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 8.989

9.  Categorization versus distance: hemispheric differences for processing spatial information.

Authors:  J B Hellige; C Michimata
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1989-11

10.  Lateralization of categorical and coordinate spatial functions: a study of unilateral stroke patients.

Authors:  B Laeng
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.225

View more
  3 in total

1.  Disturbed cervical proprioception affects perception of spatial orientation while in motion.

Authors:  Eva-Maj Malmström; Per-Anders Fransson; Terese Jaxmar Bruinen; Semir Facic; Fredrik Tjernström
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Assessing mild cognitive impairment using object-location memory in immersive virtual environments.

Authors:  Andrea Castegnaro; David Howett; Adrienne Li; Elizabeth Harding; Dennis Chan; Neil Burgess; John King
Journal:  Hippocampus       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 3.753

3.  CB1 Activity Drives the Selection of Navigational Strategies: A Behavioral and c-Fos Immunoreactivity Study.

Authors:  Daniela Laricchiuta; Francesca Balsamo; Carlo Fabrizio; Anna Panuccio; Andrea Termine; Laura Petrosini
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 5.923

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.