Where is the donut? Factors influencing spatial reference frame use

Abstract

Because different reference frames can be used to describe a simple spatial situation such as the relationship between two objects, spatial descriptions can be confusing and/or ambiguous. To reduce this difficulty, do people assume a particular reference frame when interpreting spatial descriptions? If so, does the makeup of the spatial scene affect this assumption? Does cognitive load interact with this assumption? In three experiments, we examined reference frame use and how situational and cognitive factors interact with spatial description interpretation. The main cognitive factor involved memory load, i.e., whether responses were made from memory or not. From the features of the scene (object-facing direction, located object position) emerged two interactions of interest. First, since objectfacing direction has implications for the cognitive strategies used to determine spatial relations, we assessed how object facing interacted with reference frame use. Second, we assessed how the descriptive axes associated with multiple reference frames influenced reference frame use. The results indicated that people predominantly use the intrinsic reference frame. Yet, despite this tendency, cognitive and situational variables also affected responses, both alone and in combination. These findings suggest that people maintain cognitive flexibility when interpreting spatial descriptions to reduce or inform potential ambiguities.

The role of scene type and priming in the processing and selection of a spatial frame of reference

“…General preferences for the intrinsic FOR have been reported in previous studies (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky and Irwin, 1993; Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky, 1996; Taylor et al, 1999; Taylor and Rapp, 2004). Given that these studies did not use scenes with background, the results are comparable to our findings for the scene without background.…”

“…Studies that have found a preference for the intrinsic compared to the relative FOR vary from using only a depiction of two or more objects without background elements (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky, 1996; Taylor and Rapp, 2004) to line-drawing scenes with rudimentary background elements (Carlson-Radvansky and Irwin, 1993). However, Taylor and Tversky (1996) showed that speakers chose different frames of reference for their descriptions of spatial environments depending on the characteristics of the scene they were shown.…”

How Flexible is the Use of Egocentric Versus Allocentric Frame of Reference in the Williams Syndrome Population?

“…They used an adapted spatial reference task "Where is the donut?" (Taylor & Rapp, 2004) to assess children's spontaneous use of egocentric and allocentric FOR, as well as their capacity to flexibly switch from one type of FOR to another. In the spontaneous condition, most of the children aged 7 and above used an allocentric FOR.…”

“…This study showed that simple instructions enable children to use allocentric and egocentric FORs earlier, more flexibly and more effectively than in spontaneous task conditions. Taylor and Rapp (2004) assessed adults with their spatial reference task "Where is the Donut?" and reported that adults with a typical development preferentially use an allocentric FOR if no specific instructions have been given and can flexibly use an egocentric FOR if they are instructed to.…”

Talking about Relations: Factors Influencing the Production of Relational Descriptions

“…While the study of spatial relations in the field of referring expression generation is a topic largely unexplored, in the field of spatial cognition there have been numerous studies concerned with principles that govern relatum object selection (e.g., Barclay and Galton, 2008 ; Miller et al, 2011 ; Barclay and Galton, 2013 ), the choice of adequate spatial prepositions based on geometric and functional characteristics of the objects (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky et al, 1999 ; Coventry and Garrod, 2004 ) and the influence of frames of reference on relatum selection (e.g., Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky, 1996 ; Levinson, 2003 ; Taylor and Rapp, 2004 ; Tenbrink, 2007 ). Various factors might affect the selection of a relatum object.…”