The First-Perspective Alignment Effect: The Role of Environmental Complexity and Familiarity with Surroundings

Abstract

People often remember relatively novel environments from the first perspective encountered or the first direction of travel. This initial perspective can determine a preferred orientation that facilitates the efficiency of spatial judgements at multiple recalled locations. The present study examined this "first-perspective alignment effect" (FPA effect). In three experiments, university students explored three-path routes through computer-simulated spaces presented on a desktop computer screen. Spatial memory was then tested employing a "judgement of relative direction" task. Contrary to the predictions of a previous account, Experiment 1 found a reliable FPA effect in barren and complex environments. Experiment 2 strongly implicated the importance of complete novelty of the space surrounding the route in producing the effect. Experiment 3 found that, while familiarity with the surrounding space greatly attenuated the FPA effect with immediate testing, the effect reemerged following a 7-day delay to testing. The implications for the encoding and retrieval of spatial reference frames are discussed.

Reference frames in allocentric representations are invariant across static and active encoding

“…Most previous studies that have investigated this phenomenon have been conducted via passive viewing of small environmental arrays from a limited number of viewpoints (e.g., Shelton and McNamara, 2001; Kelly and McNamara, 2008; Kelly et al, 2013) or with restricted movement (e.g., McNamara et al, 2003; Tlauka et al, 2011). As yet, there is little evidence to indicate the extent to which a salient environmental feature influences the formation of spatial memories when spatial learning occurs via free and active navigation; a scenario more in line with real-world navigation.…”

“…Learning of spatial arrays in studies of reference frames is generally conducted via passive viewing of an environment from a limited number of viewpoints (e.g., Shelton and McNamara, 2001; Kelly and McNamara, 2008; Kelly et al, 2013) or restricted movement (e.g., McNamara et al, 2003; Tlauka et al, 2011). In contrast, spatial learning in everyday circumstances often involves active exploration of an environment with an unrestricted number of viewpoints.…”

Qualitative differences in memory for vista and environmental spaces are caused by opaque borders, not movement or successive presentation

“…Such a viewer-spacealignment experienced later during learning was found to be more important for determining reference frame orientation than initial views on a room (Kelly & McNamara, 2008;Shelton & McNamara, 2001;Valiquette & McNamara, 2007). A relatively simple environmental space (e.g., few orthogonally interlinked corridors) may still be represented along a single main axis that spans the entire environmental space (axis presumably aligned with the first vista space encountered; Meilinger, Frankenstein, Watanabe, Bülthoff, & Hölscher, 2015;Tlauka, Carter, Mahlberg, & Wilson, 2011;Wilson, Wilson, Griffiths, & Fox, 2007). However, sufficiently complex environmental spaces seem to be represented within multiple local reference frames, with each local corridor or street occupying a distinct reference frame aligned with the respective corridor (Meilinger et al, 2014;Werner & Schmidt, 1999).…”

Immediate and delayed recall of a small-scale spatial array

“…Learning time was 30 seconds after which participants were blindfolded and led to an adjacent test space. In the test phase, a computer program similar to that used by McNamara (2004, see also Tlauka, Carter, Mahlberg, &Wilson, 2011) tested participants' knowledge of the spatial array. In this task, a circle and a vertical line (arrow) were presented on a computer screen.…”