Reference frames in spatial communication for navigation and sports: an empirical study in ultimate frisbee players

Abstract

Background Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (Absolute reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames (“go north” vs “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

Individual differences in spatial navigation

“…People differ in their preference for reference frames. Whereas some people prefer encoding their environments with respect to North (an allocentric reference frame), others prefer to represent their environment based on their own facing directions (Frankenstein et al, 2011;Hüther et al, 2016;Li & Gleitman, 2002;Weisberg & Chatterjee, 2020).…”

Getting LOST: A conceptual framework for supporting and enhancing spatial navigation in aging

“…Similar to localization, orientation must be specified relative to a reference frame: egocentric (i.e., relative to a navigator's current facing direction, e.g., “facing to my left”) or allocentric (i.e., relative to an environmentally‐specified direction, as in North or the direction between two landmarks). People vary in their preference for specifying orientation in egocentric or allocentric reference frames (Brown & Levinson, 1993; Li & Gleitman, 2002), which are also highly task specific (Weisberg & Chatterjee, 2020), and sensitive to properties of the environment (Frankenstein et al, 2011; McNamara et al, 2003; Shelton & Marchette, 2010).…”

Getting LOST: A conceptual framework for supporting and enhancing spatial navigation in aging

“…Similar to localization, orientation must be specified relative to a reference frame: egocentric (i.e., relative to a navigator's current facing direction, e.g., "facing to my left") or allocentric (i.e., relative to an environmentally-specified direction, as in North or the direction between two landmarks). People vary in their preference for specifying orientation in egocentric or allocentric reference frames (Brown & Levinson, 1993;Li & Gleitman, 2002), which are also highly task specific (Weisberg & Chatterjee, 2020), and sensitive to properties of the environment (Frankenstein et al, 2011;McNamara et al, 2003;Shelton & Marchette, 2010).…”