The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions

Galati, Alexia; Michael, Christina; Mello, Catherine; Greenauer, Nathan; Avraamides, Marios N.

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.001

Cited by 32 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This strategy yielded a higher cognitive workload. However, when the protagonists are able to adjust their strategies and to correct the action thereafter, it is possible that the dyad supports this effort differently (Galati et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production

Pouliquen-Lardy

Mars²,

Guillaume

et al. 2015

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When guiding a remote collaborator in a virtual environment, people often take an addressee-perspective, which may have a high cognitive cost. In order to improve collaborative virtual environments, a better understanding of how operators share spatial information is needed. This work aimed to study the cognitive workload linked to spatial statements production in situations in which the relative positions of speaker, addressee and target were varied. Twenty-two participants were asked to give--in one go--instructions to a virtual collaborator on how to find a target in a 3D environment. The scene showed an avatar in the center of eight tables. Sixty-four configurations of avatar orientation (eight possibilities) and target location (on the eight tables) were tested. We measured the delay in starting the instruction once the target appeared, the instruction duration and the subjective evaluation of mental demand. Each instruction was classified according to the spatial reference frame used. The delay was influenced by the processing of spatial information in ego-centered and addressee-centered reference frames. All subsequent measures were determined by mental transformations in addressee-centered coordinates. One condition in particular, when the target was situated diagonally behind the addressee, gave rise to a higher mental demand for the speaker, which points to the investment made by the speaker in achieving the least collaborative effort. Further work should seek to develop efficient tools to facilitate spatial communication in situations that induce the most mental workload.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production

Pouliquen-Lardy

Mars²,

Guillaume

et al. 2015

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Generally, these studies show that attributional cues about the partner influence how people interpret and produce spatial descriptions. When speakers perceive that partners have less knowledge or relevance to the task—due to a number of factors such as lower spatial abilities, less familiarity, less agency, or less information about the viewpoint—then speakers are more likely to take a partner-centered frame of reference (Schober, 2009; Duran et al, 2011; Galati et al, 2013). In other words, when the observer realizes there is less of a shared perspective, they will adjust their language to meet the needs of the partner.…”

Section: Spatial Perspective Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other's affordances: providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others

Creem-Regehr

Gagnon

Geuss

et al. 2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding what another agent can see relates functionally to the understanding of what they can do. We propose that spatial perspective taking and perceiving other's affordances, while two separate spatial processes, together share the common social function of predicting the behavior of others. Perceiving the action capabilities of others allows for a common understanding of how agents may act together. The ability to take another's perspective focuses an understanding of action goals so that more precise understanding of intentions may result. This review presents an analysis of these complementary abilities, both in terms of the frames of reference and the proposed sensorimotor mechanisms involved. Together, we argue for the importance of reconsidering the role of basic spatial processes to explain more complex behaviors.

show abstract

“…Studies using interactive tasks, on the other hand, identify factors that influence the perspective from which people tend to produce or interpret spatial descriptions (e.g., Schober, 1993; Mainwaring et al, 2003; Tenbrink et al, 2011). However, such studies typically don't examine directly the underlying off-line spatial representations or on-line processes that support perspective-taking (but see Shelton and McNamara, 2004; Duran et al, 2011; Galati et al, 2013). …”

Section: Spatial Perspective-taking In Collaborative Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible spatial perspective-taking: conversational partners weigh multiple cues in collaborative tasks

Galati¹,

Avraamides²

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on spatial perspective-taking often focuses on the cognitive processes of isolated individuals as they adopt or maintain imagined perspectives. Collaborative studies of spatial perspective-taking typically examine speakers' linguistic choices, while overlooking their underlying processes and representations. We review evidence from two collaborative experiments that examine the contribution of social and representational cues to spatial perspective choices in both language and the organization of spatial memory. Across experiments, speakers organized their memory representations according to the convergence of various cues. When layouts were randomly configured and did not afford intrinsic cues, speakers encoded their partner's viewpoint in memory, if available, but did not use it as an organizing direction. On the other hand, when the layout afforded an intrinsic structure, speakers organized their spatial memories according to the person-centered perspective reinforced by the layout's structure. Similarly, in descriptions, speakers considered multiple cues whether available a priori or at the interaction. They used partner-centered expressions more frequently (e.g., "to your right") when the partner's viewpoint was misaligned by a small offset or coincided with the layout's structure. Conversely, they used egocentric expressions more frequently when their own viewpoint coincided with the intrinsic structure or when the partner was misaligned by a computationally difficult, oblique offset. Based on these findings we advocate for a framework for flexible perspective-taking: people weigh multiple cues (including social ones) to make attributions about the relative difficulty of perspective-taking for each partner, and adapt behavior to minimize their collective effort. This framework is not specialized for spatial reasoning but instead emerges from the same principles and memory-depended processes that govern perspective-taking in non-spatial tasks.

show abstract

The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions

Cited by 32 publications

References 57 publications

Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production

Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production

Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other's affordances: providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others

Flexible spatial perspective-taking: conversational partners weigh multiple cues in collaborative tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About