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

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.

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

“…Experiment 3 helps to reconcile Experiments 1 and 2 with the results reported by May (2007). In the context of the Mou, McNamara, et al (2004) model, it appears that the egocentric representation of the learned objects is not naturally activated after movement to a novel environment.…”

“…May (2007) instructed participants to learn a set of 14 objects and then tested them in either the learning room or a remote room (on a different floor of the building). Prior to testing, participants in both locations were blindfolded and told what direction they were currently facing (e.g., "You are now at object A, facing object B").…”

Perspectives on human spatial cognition: memory, navigation, and environmental learning

“…There was no evidence that the representation of the scene was automatically updated when an observer had moved around a scene. In the next article, May (2006) reports an investigation of how blindfolded people perform perspective switches on an environment by using their imagination. When participants pointed to objects in a familiar environment while imagining that they were adopting diVerent spatial perspectives as a result of self-rotation, the typical increase in errors and response times was found.…”

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

“…Both local and remote perspective switches require us to establish an additional reference frame of the to-be-imagined environment in the to-be-imagined orientation in spatial working memory. For local perspective switches, however, there is an additional challenge as one’s actual orientation in the environment conflicts with the to-be-imagined perspective, leading to sensorimotor interference costs (Avraamides & Kelly, 2008; May, 2004, 2007; May & Wartenberg, 1995; Wang, 2005). …”

“…However, even for remote testing, deliberate cognitive re-anchoring in the learning environment can sometimes result in interference effects for imagined perspectives that are misaligned with the re-anchored perspective, mimicking sensorimotor interference effects even though participants are not physically located in the imagined environment. These effects occur when (a) participants vividly imagine being in the original learning room while either being blindfolded (May, 2007; Shelton & Marchette, 2010) or in a virtual room that is visually identical to the learning room apart from a different wall texture (Kelly, Avraamides, & Loomis, 2007); (b) participants are uncertain about their actual location, or suspect or have sensorimotor cues indicating that they might be back in the original learning room (Kelly et al, 2007; Shelton & Marchette, 2010); or (c) the virtual test room and learning rooms are visually identical (Kelly et al, 2007, Exp. 4).…”