Spatial updating relies on an egocentric representation of space: Effects of the number of objects

Abstract

Models of spatial updating attempt to explain how representations of spatial relationships between the actor and objects in the environment change as the actor moves. In allocentric models, object locations are encoded in an external reference frame, and only the actor's position and orientation in that reference frame need to be updated. Thus, spatial updating should be independent of the number of objects in the environment (set size). In egocentric updating models, object locations are encoded relative to the actor, so the location of each object relative to the actor must be updated as the actor moves. Thus, spatial updating efficiency should depend on set size. We examined which model better accounts for human spatial updating by having people reconstruct the locations of varying numbers of virtual objects either from the original study position or from a changed viewing position. In consistency with the egocentric updating model, object localization following a viewpoint change was affected by the number of objects in the environment.

Spatial updating in superimposed real and virtual environments

“…Experiment 2 also confirms previous research that people do not automatically update verbally described environments, and do not necessarily update multiple environments simultaneously, even when they occupy the same physical space (Wang, 2004). These findings are consistent with the proposal that spatial updating is capacity limited (Wang et al, 2006), and different environments have independent representations (Wang & Brockmole, 2003a).…”

Building a cognitive map by assembling multiple path integration systems

“…Their reaction time and accuracy in the novel facing direction were comparable to those in the learned direction, suggesting they were able to update their relationship to these targets during their body movement. This type of spatial updating can be performed when changing both positions and orientations (Klatzky, Lippa, Loomis, & Golledge, 2003;Rieser, Garing & Young, 1994;Simons & Wang, 1998;Waller et al, 2002;Wang et al, 2006;Wang & Simons, 1999).…”

Spatial memory during progressive disorientation.

“…The two primary candidates are egocentric and allocentric frames of reference; these reference frames are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but objects may be encoded preferentially within one or the other frame, and this possibility is the subject of current debate. Egocentric accounts posit that the dominant human spatial reference system is one in which the locations of significant objects are encoded (Wang et al, 2006;Wang & Spelke, 2000;Wang & Spelke, 2002). Allocentric accounts, by contrast, suggest that the locations of significant objects (oneself included) are encoded relative to each other and to other external, environmental referents (Gallistel, 1990;O'Keefe & Burgess, 1996).…”

“…relative to oneself (Wang et al, 2006;Wang & Spelke, 2000;Wang & Spelke, 2002). Allocentric accounts, by contrast, suggest that the locations of significant objects (oneself included) are encoded relative to each other and to other external, environmental referents (Gallistel, 1990;O'Keefe & Burgess, 1996).…”