Orientation in cognitive maps

Hintzman, Douglas L.; O’Dell, Carla; Arndt, David R.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90007-4

Cited by 222 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We appreciate, of course, that it may be impossible, in the limit, to distinguish between a view-invariant theory and a multiple-representations theory: With a sufficiently large number of representations in memory, performance may appear to be view-invariant even though it is based on view-specific information (e.g., Tarr & Pinker, 1989). Even so, our results suggest that the orientation-independent performance observed in previous studies (e.g., Hintzman et al, 1981;Presson et al, 1987) is probably attributable to the existence of multiple representations in memory rather than to the development of an orientation-independent representation of the space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Those who maintained a single orientation at study were slower and less accurate at contraaligned judgments than at aligned judgments. In similar work, Hintzman, O'Dell, and Arndt (1981) allowed participants to view a circular display of objects by spinning in a chair. Their results also indicated that participants were able to use the spatial information in an orientation-independent manner.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systems of Spatial Reference in Human Memory

Shelton¹,

McNamara²

2000

PsycEXTRA Dataset

112

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seven experiments examined the spatial reference systems used in memory to represent the locations of objects in the environment. Participants learned the locations of common objects in a room and then made judgments of relative direction using their memories of the layout (e.g., ''Imagine you are standing at the shoe, facing the lamp; point to the clock''). The experiments manipulated the number of views that observers were allowed to experience, the presence or absence of local and global reference systems (e.g., a rectangular mat on which objects were placed and the walls of the room, respectively), and the congruence of local and global reference systems. Judgments of relative direction were more accurate for imagined headings parallel to study views than for imagined headings parallel to novel views, even with up to three study views. However, study views misaligned with salient reference systems in the environment were not strongly represented if they were experienced in the context of aligned views. Novel views aligned with a local reference system were, under certain conditions, easier to imagine than were novel views misaligned with the local reference system. We propose that learning and remembering the spatial structure of the surrounding environment involves interpreting the layout in terms of a spatial reference system. This reference system is imposed on the environment but defined by egocentric experience. © 2001 Elsevier Science Spatial reference systems are essential for the specification of location and orientation in space. The location of Nashville, for example, can be specified by describing its position with respect to the boundaries of the state (e.g., Nashville is in the middle of Tennessee), by providing coordinates of latitude The authors thank Jeffrey Schall, Kyle Cave, Jeffery Franks, and Ted Payne for various contributions to the research. We also thank the reviewers for comments on earlier drafts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems of Spatial Reference in Human Memory

Shelton¹,

McNamara²

2000

PsycEXTRA Dataset

112

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, once they are well formed, the representations of spatial layouts derived from vision, audition, touch, language, pictures, maps, diagrams, and so on are all functionally equivalent and perhaps even identical (i.e., amodal; Bryant, 1997;De Vega, Cocude, Denis, Rodrigo, & Zimmer, 2001;Loomis et al, 2002). This hypothesis is further reinforced by the similarity of findings reported by studies that required localization of objects in scenes that were learned perceptually (Hintzman, O'Dell, & Arndt, 1981) or through texts (e.g., Avraamides, 2003;Franklin & Tversky, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Functional Equivalence of Spatial Representations Derived From Vision and Language: Evidence From Allocentric Judgments.

Avraamides¹,

Loomis²,

Klatzky³

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

has indicated that spatial representations derived from spatial language can function equivalently to those derived from perception. The authors tested functional equivalence for reporting spatial relations that were not explicitly stated during learning. Participants learned a spatial layout by visual perception or spatial language and then made allocentric direction and distance judgments. Experiments 1 and 2 indicated allocentric relations could be accurately reported in all modalities, but visually perceived layouts, tested with or without vision, produced faster and less variable directional responses than language. In Experiment 3, when participants were forced to create a spatial image during learning (by spatially updating during a backward translation), functional equivalence of spatial language and visual perception was demonstrated by patterns of latency, systematic error, and variability.

show abstract

“…The first session was discarded to reduce the effects of familiarization, and the last four sessions were discarded to Iformer process implies a sort of mental rotation, although it is the observer's body image that is rotated rather than the stimulus image, as was the case in the mental rotation studies described in the introduction. The possibility that observers perform some sort of mental rotation gains some credibility from *the strong similarity between the shape of the reaction time functions for the LEFT and RIGHT responses and those obtained by Cooper and Shepard (1973) and by Hintzman et al (1981). However, the fact that Hintzman found evidence of mental rotation in only one of the two types of tasks he used should be borne in mind.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Display-Control Compatibility in 3-D Displays. 1: Effects of Orientation

Huggins¹,

Getty²

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orientation in cognitive maps

Cited by 222 publications

References 16 publications

Systems of Spatial Reference in Human Memory

Systems of Spatial Reference in Human Memory

Functional Equivalence of Spatial Representations Derived From Vision and Language: Evidence From Allocentric Judgments.

Display-Control Compatibility in 3-D Displays. 1: Effects of Orientation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About