Perception of Space by Multiple Intrinsic Frames of Reference

Abstract

It has been documented that when memorizing a physical space, the person's mental representation of that space is biased with distortion and segmentation. Two experiments reported here suggest that distortion and segmentation arise due to a hierarchical organization of the spatial representation. The spatial relations associated with salient landmarks are more strongly encoded and easier to recall than those associated with non-salient landmarks. In the presence of multiple salient landmarks, multiple intrinsic frames of reference are formed and spatial relations are anchored to each individual frame of reference. Multiple such representations may co-exist and interactively determine a person's spatial performance.

The Parietal Cortex in Sensemaking: The Dissociation of Multiple Types of Spatial Information

“…Neurologically, it has been posited that the parietal cortex is responsible for the transition between reference systems (e.g., [24, 74]). From behavioral studies, we have argued that the selection of reference systems (e.g., egocentric versus intrinsic) is an essential component in the internal representation of physical distances and relative locations [21, 23]. Thus, implementing the mechanisms of attentional foveation and selection of reference systems would lead to a more realistic model with the ability to identify some of the human heuristics and biases in spatial representation and reasoning.…”

“…According to theory of frame of reference-based maps of salience (FORMS), the parietal cortex subserves spatial representations using a range of egocentric frames of references (e.g., eye centered, hand centered, and body centered, etc.) so as to allow rapid actions [21–23]. In addition, intrinsic representations, which represent between-object relations using a world-centered frame of reference but often involve some degree of perspective taking, are also encoded in parietal cortex, especially the posterior parietal cortex [24].…”

“…Regarding the curvature (Figure 4(a)), it has been suggested that the “sagitta” provides the best cue in accounting for the discrimination of pairs of long-duration, curved-line stimuli, over a range of one- and two-dimensional transformations, and the contour curvature was coded in terms of just two or three curvature categories, depending on curved-line orientation [28]. Regarding the connectedness (Figure 4(b)), Sun and Wang [21] found that object pairs connected or anchored to the same landmarks are easier to recall than those anchored to different landmarks. Together, these studies suggest that people are to a certain extent sensitive to the variations in curvature and connectedness.…”

Spatial Reasoning With Multiple Intrinsic Frames of Reference

“…FORs based on navigable environments (the allocentric FOR, or AFOR), such as rooms, buildings, or cities, represent the layouts of those environments and what affordances they give to way finding (Klatzky, 1998; Mou & McNamara, 2002; Wang & Spelke, 2002). Recently a third type of FOR, which is generally called the intrinsic frame of reference (IFOR), has received much attention because of its unique properties (e.g., Kessler & Thomson, 2010; Li, Mou, & McNamara, 2009; Mou & McNamara, 2002; Mou, Zhang, & McNamara, 2009; Sun & Wang, 2010; Wang, Sun, Johnson, & Yuan, 2005). …”

“…What is unique about the IFOR is that its reference point and axes are not anchored on the observer self or the entire environment, but on an object or an object group that are within the environment and exogenous to the observer, provided that the anchoring object(s) can afford distinctive orientation axes or boundaries (Li et al, 2009; Mou et al, 2009; Sun & Wang, 2010). Figure 1 highlights the distinction between the three reference systems.…”