In two experiments, subjects learned an unfamiliar campus environment, either by studying a map or by navigating. During acquisition, the subjects had one of two spatial goals: to learn the layout of the building (survey goal) or to learn the fastest routes between locations (route goal). Spatial memory was tested with several tasks, some assessing survey perspective processing and some assessing route perspective processing. Results indicate multiple influences on the representation of spatial perspective. Learning condition influenced performance. Individuals studying maps gave more accurate responses to some survey perspective tasks, whereas individuals navigating gave more accurate responses to some route perspective tasks. Spatial goals also influenced performance. Having a route goal enhanced performance on route perspective tasks; having a survey goal enhanced performance on survey perspective tasks. These findings are discussed in the context of research indicating flexibility when processing spatial perspective. Individuals can use spatial information from different perspectives, often doing so in a goal-directed manner.Negotiations ofour environment, such as walking across campus, riding a bike home, or driving to a new destination, require complex spatial information. This information can come from different sources-including exploration, maps, and verbal descriptions-and can be isomorphic, but the sources differ in ways that may impact how we mentally represent the information. Primary differences between spatial information sources fall into two categories: the symbolic nature of the information and the spatial perspective imparted, either route or survey. We will concentrate on the latter. The purpose of the present research is to examine the influence of perspective-based goals (survey and route) on spatial memory from different information sources (maps and navigation). These effects will be examined, using a number of different spatial tasks.Maps and navigation impart different types of spatial information, most notably the spatial perspective. Perspective generally reflects the viewpoint taken on the environment, either within (route perspective) or above (survey perspective). Other types of knowledge gained through maps and navigation contribute to the overall sense of each perspective, including the reference system for locating new landmarks, whether the orientation is stable or changing, and the amount of information available at a given time. Exploration of an environment provides route information, the characteristics of which include a within-environment viewpoint, a viewer-centered

No abstract

The process of describing an object's location relative to another object results in ambiguity. How do people handle this ambiguity? The present studies examined spatial language processing when use of different reference frames results in ambiguity. We investigated whether electrophysiological (ERP) measures of cognitive processing may elucidate underlying reference frame processing; in particular, we were interested in semantic integration. ERP results showed a larger N400, peaking between 300 and 375 ms, when the intrinsic frame was not used. Behavioural results mirrored this finding, indicating a reduced cognitive processing requirement for the intrinsic reference frame. Previous work has not definitively tied spatial reference frame processing to specific ERP components and their associated cognitive processes. Although the N400 peak seen in this data is early, additional work supports the N400 interpretation, thereby linking spatial frame processing to semantic integration. Results are discussed within the larger context of spatial reference frame processing.Résumé L'opération qui consiste à décrire l'endroit où se trouve un objet par rapport à un autre est source d'ambiguïté. Mais comment les gens composent-ils avec cette ambiguïté ? Les présentes études se sont penchées sur le traitement du langage spatial lorsque le recours à différents cadres de référence produit de l'ambiguïté. Nous avons tenté de déterminer si des mesures électro-physiologiques (ERP) permettent d'éclairer la nature du traitement du cadre de référence sous-jacent; nous nous sommes tout particulièrement intéressés à l'intégration sémantique. Ces mesures montrent une composante N400 plus importante, avec une pointe se situant entre 300 et 375 ms, dans les cas où le cadre intrinsèque n'est pas utilisé. Les résultats comportementaux concordent avec cette conclusion, puisqu'ils indiquent des exigences réduites dans le traitement cognitif appliqué au cadre de référence intrinsèque. Des travaux antérieurs n'ont pas encore établi de lien clair entre le traitement du cadre de référence spatial et des composantes particulières des potentiels évoqués, ainsi que les processus cognitifs qui leur sont associés. Malgré que la pointe que nous avons observée à l'onde N400 soit précoce, une autre étude appuie notre interprétation, reliant ainsi le traitement du cadre spatial à l'intégration sémantique. Ces résultats sont interprétés dans le contexte plus général du traitement du cadre de référence spatial.

No abstract

No abstract