Lack of set size effects in spatial updating: Evidence for offline updating.

Hodgson, Eric; Waller, David

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.854

Cited by 31 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence on the capacity limits of spatial updating is mixed. Results of at least one study indicate that spatial updating deteriorates in accuracy as the number of objects increases (Wang et al, 2006), whereas findings from other studies indicate that spatial updating is capacity-free (Rieser and Rider, 1991;Hodgson and Waller, 2006). This pattern of results has led some researchers to distinguish two forms of updating, one that occurs on-line and relies on working memory and another that occurs off-line and relies on long-term memory (e.g., Amorim et al, 1997;Cornell and Greidanus, 2006;Hodgson and Waller, 2006).…”

Section: Navigation and Spatial Updatingmentioning

confidence: 81%

Human Spatial Memory and Navigation

McNamara¹,

Sluzenski²,

Rump³

2008

Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Navigation and Spatial Updatingmentioning

confidence: 81%

Human Spatial Memory and Navigation

McNamara¹,

Sluzenski²,

Rump³

2008

Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact, performance is typically comparable from these two standpoints even when the movement towards the novel standpoint is done without vision (but see Hodgson and Waller 2006). Participants are also quite good at continually pointing to a target during physical movement (Loomis et al 1992).…”

Section: Updating Of Egocentric Relationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Then s/he must compute a response vector using that reference frame. Perhaps this computation takes place using an offline updating process (Amorim et al 1997;Hodgson and Waller 2006). One form of off-line updating that could be used is that of mentally simulating movement in space and deliberating observing its consequence on imagined egocentric locations.…”

Section: Sensorimotor Interference When Reasoning About Immediate Envmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple systems of spatial memory and action

Avraamides

Kelly

2007

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent findings from spatial cognition and cognitive neuroscience suggest that different types of mental representations could mediate the off-line retrieval of spatial relations from memory and the on-line guidance of motor actions in space. As a result, a number of models proposing multiple systems of spatial memory have been recently formulated. In the present article we review these models and we evaluate their postulates based on available experimental evidence. Furthermore, we discuss how a multiple-system model can apply to situations in which people reason about their immediate surroundings or non-immediate environments by incorporating a model of sensorimotor facilitation/interference. This model draws heavily on previous accounts of sensorimotor interference and takes into account findings from the stimulus-response compatibility literature.

show abstract

“…Then as task demands direct attention to particular points within the bound representation, the egocentric vector conception of the representation might give way to a richer conception in which objects are encoded relative to each other. This richer representation may reside offline during updating as suggested by Amorim, Glasauer, Corpinot, and Berthoz (1997) and Hodgson and Waller (2006), and it may be supported partly or wholly by egocentric imagery, but it undoubtedly contains a wealth of spatial information about the relative location of its component parts, independent of the location of one's body. It is in this sense that the bound representations may be considered allocentric.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial memory during progressive disorientation.

Sargent¹,

Dopkins²,

Philbeck³

et al. 2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human spatial representations of object locations in a room-sized environment were probed for evidence that the object locations were encoded relative not just to the observer (egocentrically) but also to each other (allocentrically). Participants learned the locations of 4 objects and then were blindfolded and either (a) underwent a succession of 70° and 200° whole-body rotations or (b) were fully disoriented and then underwent a similar sequence of 70° and 200° rotations. After each rotation, participants pointed to the objects without vision. Analyses of the pointing errors suggest that as participants lost orientation, represented object directions generally "drifted" off of their true directions as an ensemble, not in random, unrelated directions. This is interpreted as evidence that object-to-object (allocentric) relationships play a large part in the human spatial updating system. However, there was also some evidence that represented object directions occasionally drifted off of their true directions independently of one another, suggesting a lack of allocentric influence. Implications regarding the interplay of egocentric and allocentric information are considered.Keywords spatial representation; egocentric-allocentric frames of reference; spatial updating A variety of animal species, including humans, are able to demonstrate that they maintain stored spatial information about the location of objects in their environment (e.g., Loomis et al., 1993;O'Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Wehner & Srinivasan, 1981). More remarkably, many species, including humans, are able to demonstrate knowledge of object locations even while locomoting along novel paths without visual perception of the objects (e.g., Esch & Burns, 1996;Loomis, Da Silva, Fujita, & Fukusima, 1992;Mittelstaedt & Mittelstaedt, 1982;Wehner & Wehner, 1986). This indicates that the represented object locations are updated during body motion. In addition to blind navigation, this ability supports foraging, food caching and exploration of novel territory in nonhumann animals (Allen, 1999;Gallistel, 1990;Jacobs & Liman, 1991), and analogous behaviors in humans.A central issue for characterizing the representations that are updated during self-motion concerns the frame of reference within which objects are encoded. The two primary candidates are egocentric and allocentric frames of reference; these reference frames are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but objects may be encoded preferentially within one or the other frame, and this possibility is the subject of current debate. Egocentric accounts posit that the dominant human spatial reference system is one in which the locations of significant objects are encoded (Wang et al., 2006;Wang & Spelke, 2000;Wang & Spelke, 2002). Allocentric accounts, by contrast, suggest that the locations of significant objects (oneself included) are encoded relative to each other and to other external, environmental referents (Gallistel, 1990;O'Keefe & Burgess, 1996). NIH Public AccessIn one particularly clear formulati...

show abstract

Lack of set size effects in spatial updating: Evidence for offline updating.

Cited by 31 publications

References 46 publications

Human Spatial Memory and Navigation

Human Spatial Memory and Navigation

Multiple systems of spatial memory and action

Spatial memory during progressive disorientation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About