Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations.

Abstract

Six experiments compared spatial updating of an array after imagined rotations of the array versus viewer. Participants responded faster and made fewer errors in viewer tasks than in array tasks while positioned outside (Experiment 1) or inside (Experiment 2) the array. An apparent array advantage for updating objects rather than locations was attributable to participants imagining translations of single objects rather than rotations of the array (Experiment 3). Superior viewer performance persisted when the array was reduced to 1 object (Experiment 4); however, an object with a familiar configuration improved object performance somewhat (Experiment 5). Object performance reached near-viewer levels when rotations included haptic information for the turning object. The researchers discuss these findings in terms of the relative differences in which the human cognitive system transforms the spatial reference frames corresponding to each imagined rotation.Suppose you are playing a board game with a group of friends, and you want to know what the board looks like from one of their perspectives, without moving to it. There are two obvious ways to proceed. You could imagine rotating the board until the side corresponding to the new perspective is coincident with your current viewpoint (object rotation). Alternatively, you could imagine moving yourself to the vantage point of the new perspective (viewer rotation). Both operations have been implicated in human beings 1 ability to update objects and scenes across views (e.g.,

Egocentric and object-based transformations in the laterality judgement of human and animal faces and of non-corporeal objects

“…This indicates that one set of instructions spontaneously lead to two entirely different strategies, and highlights the importance of recognizing the often glossed over role of individual differences in cognitive strategy and motor imagery performance [47]. Notably, and in accord to other studies which included the spatial transformation of one self with respect to a model room [34] or the spatial transformation of a car and of one's own perspective [45], the typical psychophysical profile for response times (mental rotation function) was found for the objectbased group, but not the egocentric group. This adds support to the idea of different cognitive strategies underlying the two mental transformations [36,40,46].…”

“…However, the lack of such stimuli's orientation effect in the egocentric group can be interpreted as evidence of greater flexibility from physical laws [46]. In particular it has been shown that RTs for imagined egocentric transformations can be less dependent on the angle of rotation with respect to object-based mental transformations [8,9,44,45]. Neurophysiologically, egocentric imagery seems to cause a direct mapping into one's own body schema and involves overall motor processes, while object-based imagery relies less on motor processes [36,28].…”

Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

“…The cognitive task of imagining what an array of objects in the world would look like after an observer or the array has rotated has been examined extensively in recent studies (Amorim & Stucchi, 1997;Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979;Presson, 1980Presson, , 1982Wraga et al, 2000). Initial studies by Presson and colleagues compared imagined viewer and object rotations in adults and children ®nding varying results depending on the type of information given (Huttenlocher & Presson, 1979;Presson, 1980Presson, , 1982.…”

“…To judge what an array of objects in the world looks like from another perspective, one could imagine a rotation of one's own viewpoint or imagine a rotation of the object itself. Recent work indicates clear differences in the cognitive mechanisms involved in performing these different types of imagined rotations (Wraga, Creem, & Prof®tt, 2000). Several studies have shown an advantage in reaction time (RT) and accuracy for updating during imagined self-rotation versus imagined rotation of an array of objects or a single object (Amorim & Stucchi, 1997;Carpenter & Prof®tt, in press;Presson, 1982;Wraga et al, 2000).…”

“…Recent work indicates clear differences in the cognitive mechanisms involved in performing these different types of imagined rotations (Wraga, Creem, & Prof®tt, 2000). Several studies have shown an advantage in reaction time (RT) and accuracy for updating during imagined self-rotation versus imagined rotation of an array of objects or a single object (Amorim & Stucchi, 1997;Carpenter & Prof®tt, in press;Presson, 1982;Wraga et al, 2000). Wraga et al (2000) showed that this viewer rotation advantage generalized to many different conditions involving the imagined rotation of four-object and single-object displays in the transverse (ground) plane, perpendicular to the viewer's principal axis (see Fig.…”