Use of self-to-object and object-to-object spatial relations in locomotion.

Abstract

Eight experiments examined the use of representations of self-to-object or object-to-object spatial relations during locomotion. Participants learned geometrically regular or irregular layouts of objects while standing at the edge or in the middle, and then pointed to objects while blindfolded in three conditions: before turning (baseline), after rotating 240 degrees (updating), and after disorientation (disorientation). The internal consistency of pointing in the disorientation condition was equivalent to that in the updating condition when participants learned the regular layout. The internal consistency of pointing was disrupted by disorientation when participants learned the irregular layout. However when participants who learned the regular layout were instructed to use self-to-object spatial relations, the effect of disorientation on pointing consistency appeared. When participants who learned the irregular layout at the periphery of the layout were instructed to use object-to-object spatial relations, the effect of disorientation disappeared. These results suggest that people represent both self-to-object and object-to-object spatial relations, and primarily use object-to-object spatial representation in a regular layout and self-to-object spatial representation in an irregular layout.Keywords self-to-object spatial relations; object-to-object spatial relations; spatial updating; disorientation An object's location is usually perceived in the context of other objects. When a person locomotes in an environment, he or she may encounter many different arrays of objects. On some occasions, an array of objects forms a more regular structure. For example, tables in a classroom are aligned column by column, row by row. But on other occasions, an array of objects forms a less regular structure. For example, objects in an office (e.g., phone, mug, pen, stapler) may appear to be arranged haphazardly. Research has shown that human spatial memory tends to regularize the structure of an array of objects so as to line up objects relative to each other (e.g., Tversky, 1981). The aim of this project was to investigate whether the regularity of array structure 1 also affects the nature of spatial memory, in particular the selection of reference object (egocentric or allocentric) in spatial memory.Corresponding author: Weimin Mou, P217 Biological Sciences Bldg, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2E9, wmou@ualberta.ca. 1 The regularity of array structure is determined by whether objects in the array line up row by row and column by column. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptOne key question of research on spatial memory is to determine the extent to which spatial memory depends on egocentric or allocentric frames of reference (e.g. Burgess, 2006;Easton & Sholl, 1995;Klatzky, 1998;McNamara, Rump, & Werner, 2003;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Sholl, 2001;Wang & Spelke, 2000;2002). Egocentric means that the spatial reference...

Testing the exclusivity effect in location memory

“…This is also consistent with Xiao, Mou and McNamara, (2009), who 29 suggested that allocentric frames of reference are more likely to be employed in a regular array, such as the one used in the current experiment (9 distinct locations along the horizontal axis, flanked by one or two anchors).…”

Building a cognitive map by assembling multiple path integration systems

“…For example, Wang and Spelke (2000;Sargent, Dopkins, Philbeck, & Chichka, 2010;Waller & Hodgson, 2006;Xiao, Mou & McNamara, 2009) asked people to learn multiple target objects in a room. They then pointed to these targets before and after disorientation.…”

The organization of room geometry and object layout geometry in human memory

“…In particular, object-to-object relational knowledge seems to be highly sensitive to learning conditions (Mou et al, 2006;Waller & Hodgson, 2006;Xiao et al, 2009). In contrast, rooms can be irregularly shaped and viewed piecemeal and still be represented in a way that is robust to disorientation (Wang & Spelke, 2000).…”

“…We also manipulated learning heading to examine its influence. Learning viewpoint has been shown to affect the selection of reference axes in memory (e.g., McNamara, Rump, & Werner, 2003;Shelton & McNamara, 2001), especially for irregular layouts of objects (Xiao et al, 2009). Other modifications in Experiment 2 were the following: We misaligned the configurations so that participants could not use their knowledge about one configuration to respond on trials for the other; we blocked the four trial types in order to maximize possible differences between them; finally, we reexamined the cost of switching between configurations with a sufficient sample size of 40 participants.…”

“…However, no disruption occurred when people learned a regularly shaped object layout from a single viewpoint on the periphery. Mou et al (2006) argued that learning the irregular layout from the center produced unstable representations of object-to-object spatial relations and that, under such conditions, people formed transient egocentric representations vulnerable to disruption (see also Xiao, Mou, & McNamara, 2009). In Holmes and Sholl's (2005) experiments, participants walked around the room to learn the object locations and could easily have viewed the entire layout from one peripheral position in the room.…”