Frames of reference and categorical/coordinate spatial relations in a “what was where” task

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore how people use egocentric (i.e., with respect to their body) and allocentric (i.e., with respect to another element in the environment) references in combination with coordinate (metric) or categorical (abstract) spatial information to identify a target element. Participants were asked to memorize triads of 3D objects or 2D figures, and immediately or after a delay of 5 s, they had to verbally indicate what was the object/figure: (1) closest/farthest to them (egocentric coordinate task); (2) on their right/left (egocentric categorical task); (3) closest/farthest to another object/figure (allocentric coordinate task); (4) on the right/left of another object/figure (allocentric categorical task). Results showed that the use of 2D figures favored categorical judgments over the coordinate ones with either an egocentric or an allocentric reference frame, whereas the use of 3D objects specifically favored egocentric coordinate judgments rather than the allocentric ones. Furthermore, egocentric judgments were more accurate than allocentric judgments when the response was Immediate rather than delayed and 3D objects rather than 2D figures were used. This pattern of results is discussed in the light of the functional roles attributed to the frames of reference and spatial relations by relevant theories of visuospatial processing.

Egocentric metric representations in peripersonal space: A bridge between motor resources and spatial memory

“…Materials and procedure were the same as those used in previous studies (e.g., Iachini & Ruggiero, 2006; Iachini et al ., 2014; Ruotolo et al ., 2016). Twenty‐four triads of geometrical objects (pyramid, parallelepiped, cone, cube, sphere, cylinder) of big (8 × 8 cm; but parallelepiped/cylinder: 8 × 11 cm) and small (6 × 6 cm; but parallelepiped/cylinder: 6 × 9 cm) sizes were presented on 24 plasterboard panels (each measuring 50 × 30 × 2 cm).…”

“…The results of Experiment 1 revealed that participants were more accurate and faster with egocentric than allocentric judgements, and more accurate with categorical than coordinate spatial relations. These results are fully in line with previous evidence that showed an advantage for body‐centred egocentric representations over object‐centred allocentric representations (Iachini & Ruggiero, 2006; Ruggiero et al ., 2014; for reviews see Colombo et al ., 2017; Galati et al ., 2010) and for categorical‐invariant relations over coordinate‐metric ones (Ruggiero et al ., 2014; Ruggiero, Iavarone, et al ., 2018; Ruotolo et al ., 2011, 2015, 2016). Moreover, participants were more accurate and faster when having their arms free rather than fixed.…”

“…Human beings represent spatial information by using egocentric (i.e., subject‐to‐object) and/or allocentric (i.e., object‐to‐object) frames of reference combined with categorical (e.g., left/right to) and/or coordinate (e.g., 1 mt far) spatial relations (Aguirre & D'Esposito, 1999; Bianchini et al ., 2014; Burgess, 2006; Kosslyn, 2006; Lopez, O. Caffò, Spano, & Bosco, 2019; O'Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Paillard, 1991; Postma & De Haan, 1996; Ruotolo et al ., 2019; Ruggiero, Ruotolo, & Iachini, 2012; Ruggiero, Frassinetti, Iavarone, & Iachini, 2014; for reviews see Colombo et al ., 2017; Galati, Pelle, Berthoz, & Committeri, 2010). The combination of frames of reference and spatial relations gives rise to four basic spatial representations that allow to specify, for example, if ‘a cup is at 30 cm to us or on our right’ (egocentric‐coordinate or egocentric‐categorical combination, respectively) or if ‘a cup is 30 cm from the spoon or on the left of the spoon’ (allocentric‐coordinate or allocentric‐categorical combination, respectively) (Ruotolo, van der Ham, Postma, Ruggiero, & Iachini, 2015; Ruotolo, Iachini, Postma, & van der Ham, 2011; Ruotolo, Iachini, Ruggiero, van der Ham, & Postma, 2016). It has been suggested that action‐related tasks should strongly involve egocentric‐coordinate (Ego‐Coor) representations.…”

Disturbed cervical proprioception affects perception of spatial orientation while in motion

“…During this first STIP the subjects were probably influenced by available reference frames before the test started, i.e., having a visual (external) memory of the test area. After the first STIP the performance changed which could reflect a diminished memory (external guidance) with a shift towards more reliance on internal reference frames (Ruotolo et al 2016 ). A possible shift into greater reliance on proprioception suggest a reweighting of available sensory information.…”

CB1 Activity Drives the Selection of Navigational Strategies: A Behavioral and c-Fos Immunoreactivity Study

“…Conversely, the navigational strategies based on a global representation of the environment mainly involve an allocentric (world-centered) system of reference. Such a system allows moving into the space to reach a goal by referring to an internalized cognitive map, in which the location of an object is represented in spatial relationships with the other objects of the environment [10]. The allocentric navigational strategies involve learning events and environmental relations, integrating them in a spatial cognitive map, remembering the map and then deploying it to plan trajectories and paths [11].…”