scholarly journals Using temporal order to identify spatial reference frames

2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (6) ◽  
pp. 1068-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. AVONS ◽  
K. OSWALD
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frames ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames

scholarly journals Exploring Reference Frame Integration Using Response Demands in a Tactile Temporal-Order Judgement Task

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Kaian Unwalla ◽  
Daniel Goldreich ◽  
David I. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frame ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Relative Weight ◽  
Internal Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
External Reference ◽  
Temporal Order Judgement ◽  
Bias Condition

Abstract Exploring the world through touch requires the integration of internal (e.g., anatomical) and external (e.g., spatial) reference frames — you only know what you touch when you know where your hands are in space. The deficit observed in tactile temporal-order judgements when the hands are crossed over the midline provides one tool to explore this integration. We used foot pedals and required participants to focus on either the hand that was stimulated first (an anatomical bias condition) or the location of the hand that was stimulated first (a spatiotopic bias condition). Spatiotopic-based responses produce a larger crossed-hands deficit, presumably by focusing observers on the external reference frame. In contrast, anatomical-based responses focus the observer on the internal reference frame and produce a smaller deficit. This manipulation thus provides evidence that observers can change the relative weight given to each reference frame. We quantify this effect using a probabilistic model that produces a population estimate of the relative weight given to each reference frame. We show that a spatiotopic bias can result in either a larger external weight (Experiment 1) or a smaller internal weight (Experiment 2) and provide an explanation of when each one would occur.

scholarly journals The influence of visual experience and cognitive goals on spatial representations of nociceptive stimuli

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Vanderclausen ◽  
Louise Manfron ◽  
Anne De Volder ◽  
Valéry Legrain
Keyword(s):  
Visual Experience ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Temporal Order Judgment ◽  
The Body ◽  
Spatial Representations ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Brain

AbstractLocalizing pain is an important process as it allows detecting which part of the body is being hurt and identifying in its surrounding which stimulus is producing the damage. Nociceptive inputs should therefore be mapped according to both somatotopic (“which limb is stimulated?”) and spatiotopic representations (“where is the stimulated limb?”). Since the limbs constantly move in space, the brain has to realign the different spatial representations, for instance when the hands are crossed and the left/right hand is in the right/left part of space, in order to adequately guide actions towards the threatening object. Such ability is thought to be dependent on past sensory experience and contextual factors. This was tested by comparing performances of early blind and normally sighted participants during nociceptive temporal order judgment tasks. The instructions prioritized either anatomy (left/right hands) or the external space (left/right hemispaces). As compared to an uncrossed hands posture, sighted participants’ performances were decreased when the hands were crossed, whatever the instructions. Early blind participants’ performances were affected by crossing the hands only during spatial instruction, but not during anatomical instruction. These results indicate that nociceptive stimuli are automatically coded according to both somatotopic and spatiotopic representations, but the integration of the different spatial reference frames would depend on early visual experience and ongoing cognitive goals, illustrating the plasticity and the flexibility of the nociceptive system.

scholarly journals Reference frames in spatial communication for navigation and sports: an empirical study in ultimate frisbee players

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Weisberg ◽  
Anjan Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frame ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The North ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Spatial Communication ◽  
Spatial Domains ◽  
Ultimate Frisbee

Abstract Background Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (Absolute reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames (“go north” vs “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

scholarly journals Testing the spatial reference frames used for manual interception

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1063-1063
Author(s):  
J. C. Dessing ◽  
J. D. Crawford ◽  
W. P. Medendorp
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames

Space Representation in Children

2018 ◽  
pp. 13-22
Keyword(s):  
Object Representation ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Space Representation ◽  
Spatial Transformations ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The Central Nervous System ◽  
The Individual

With “Spatial Reference Frames” we refer to systems of coordinates by which the central nervous system encodes the relative positions of objects in space, including that of the body itself. A reference system is a way of representing the positions of the subjects / objects in space. The spatial position of an object can be represented in the brain with respect to different classes of reference points, which may be related or not to the position of the subject. In a nutshell, we can say that there are two types of transformations of space imagery: the allocentric spatial transformations, that involve a system of representation from object to object and encode information about the location of an object or its parts in relation to other objects, and egocentric spatial transformations that involve a system of subject-object representation. The human being switches from one code to another, depending on the contingent requirements, giving preference to one or another system according to a set of heterogeneous factors. The gender difference (male / female), for example, plays a key role. Even the individual cognitive strategies make use of different representations in a significantly different way. Manipulation of spatial reference systems constitute a “transnosographic trait” in various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Each of these diseases (autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, spatial anxiety, Parkinson) reaches some of the structures involved in the manipulation of referential of different spaces. The chapter illustrates Piaget's study on the representation of space in the child and the use of different spatial coding systems, and provides a brief overview of the scientific debate following the Piagetian position.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document