The relationship between allocentric and egocentric frames of reference and categorical and coordinate spatial information processing

We report two experiments on the relationship between allocentric/egocentric frames of reference and categorical/coordinate spatial relations. Jager and Postma (2003) suggest two theoretical possibilities about their relationship: categorical judgements are better when combined with an allocentric reference frame and coordinate judgements with an egocentric reference frame (interaction hypothesis); allocentric/egocentric and categorical/coordinate form independent dimensions (independence hypothesis). Participants saw stimuli comprising two vertical bars (targets), one above and the other below a horizontal bar. They had to judge whether the targets appeared on the same side (categorical) or at the same distance (coordinate) with respect either to their body-midline (egocentric) or to the centre of the horizontal bar (allocentric). The results from Experiment 1 showed a facilitation in the allocentric and categorical conditions. In line with the independence hypothesis, no interaction effect emerged. To see whether the results were affected by the visual salience of the stimuli, in Experiment 2 the luminance of the horizontal bar was reduced. As a consequence, a significant interaction effect emerged indicating that categorical judgements were more accurate than coordinate ones, and especially so in the allocentric condition. Furthermore, egocentric judgements were as accurate as allocentric ones with a specific improvement when combined with coordinate spatial relations. The data from Experiment 2 showed that the visual salience of stimuli affected the relationship between allocentric/egocentric and categorical/coordinate dimensions. This suggests that the emergence of a selective interaction between the two dimensions may be modulated by the characteristics of the task.     

The contributions of egocentric and allocentric reference frames in haptic spatial tasks

The influence of egocentric and allocentric reference frames on performance in haptic spatial tasks, was tested in three conditions. Blindfolded subjects had to make two bars haptically parallel, perpendicular or mirrored in the midsagittal plane. The hypothesis is that the contributions of egocentric and allocentric reference frames are combined, resulting in settings that lie in between the allo-representation and the ego-representation. This leads to different predictions for the outcome of different conditions. All findings were consistent with the hypothesis. In addition, for subjects with large deviations a reversal of the oblique effect was found once again, which provides extra support for the hypothesis.     

Lateralization of egocentric and allocentric spatial processing after parietal brain lesions

The purpose of this paper was to verify whether left and right parietal brain lesions may selectively impair egocentric and allocentric processing of spatial information in near/far spaces. Two Right-Brain-Damaged (RBD), 2 Left-Brain-Damaged (LBD) patients (not affected by neglect or language disturbances) and eight normal controls were submitted to the Ego-Allo Task requiring distance judgments computed according to egocentric or allocentric frames of reference in near/far spaces. Subjects also completed a general neuropsychological assessment and the following visuospatial tasks: reproduction of the Rey-Osterreith figure, line length judgement, point position identification, mental rotation, mental construction, line length memory, line length inference, Corsi block-tapping task. LBD patients presented difficulties in both egocentric and allocentric processing, whereas RBD patients dropped in egocentric but not in allocentric judgements, and in near but not far space. Further, RBD patients dropped in perceptually comparing linear distances, whereas LBD patients failed in memory for distances. The overall pattern of results suggests that the right hemisphere is specialized in processing metric information according to egocentric frames of reference. The data are interpreted according to a theoretical model that highlights the close link between egocentric processing and perceptual control of action.     

Remembering object position in the absence of vision: egocentric, allocentric, and egocentric decentred frames of reference

In three experiments we examined whether memory for object locations in the peri-personal space in the absence of vision is affected by the correspondence between encoding and test either of the body position or of the reference point. In particular, the study focuses on the distinction between different spatial representations, by using a paradigm in which participants are asked to relocate objects explored haptically. Three frames of reference were systematically compared. In experiment 1, participants relocated the objects either from the same position of learning by taking as reference their own body (centred egocentric condition) or from a 90 degrees decentred position (allocentric condition). Performance was measured in terms of linear distance errors and angular distance errors. Results revealed that the allocentric condition was more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. In experiment 2, participants performed either the centred egocentric condition or a decentred egocentric condition, in which the body position during the test was the same as at encoding (egocentric) but the frame of reference was based on a point decentred by 90 degrees. The decentred egocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the centred egocentric condition. Finally, in experiment 3, participants performed in the decentred egocentric condition or the allocentric condition. Here, the allocentric condition was found to be more difficult than the decentred egocentric condition. Taken together, the results suggest that also in the peripersonal space and in the absence of vision different frames of reference can be distinguished. In particular, the decentred egocentric condition involves a frame of reference which seems to be neither allocentric nor totally egocentric.     

The nature of categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing: An interference study

Spatial relation information can be encoded in two different ways: categorically, which is abstract, and coordinately, which is metric. Although categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing is commonly conceived as relying on spatial representations and spatial cognitive processes, some suggest that representations and cognitive processes involved in categorical spatial relation processing can be verbal as well as spatial. We assessed the extent to which categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing engages verbal and spatial representations and processes using a dual-task paradigm. Participants performed the classical dot-bar paradigm and simultaneously performed either a spatial tapping task, or an articulatory suppression task. When participants were requested to tap blocks in a given pattern (spatial tapping), their performance decreased in both the categorical and coordinate tasks compared to a control condition without interference. In contrast, articulatory suppression did not affect performance in either spatial relation task. A follow-up experiment indicated that this outcome could not be attributed to different levels of difficulty of the two interference tasks. These results provide strong evidence that both coordinate and categorical spatial relation processing relies mainly on spatial mechanisms. These findings have implications for theories on why categorical and coordinate spatial relations processing are lateralised in the brain.     

The development of categorical and coordinate spatial relations

Two classes of spatial relations can be distinguished in between and within object representations. Kosslyn [Kosslyn, S. M. (1987). Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: A computational approach. Psychological Review, 94, 148–175] suggested that the right hemisphere (RH) is specialized for processing coordinate (metric) spatial information and the left hemisphere (LH) processes categorical (abstract) information more effectively. The present study examined the developmental pattern of spatial relation processing in 6–8-year old, 10–12-year old and adults. Using signal detection analyses we calculated sensitivity and bias scores for all age groups. The results indicated that older children and adults showed a greater response bias than younger children. Also, discrimination sensitivity for spatial relation changes clearly improved with age. For the oldest children (10–12-year old) and adults this improvement was accompanied by a RH specialization. In contrast with Kosslyn's claim, this RH advantage also applied to the processing of categorical spatial information. The results are discussed in terms of a right hemispheric specialization for spatial relation processing which matures with age.     

Haptic space processing--allocentric and egocentric reference frames.

In this paper a haptic matching, task is used to analyze haptic spatial processing. In various conditions, blindfolded participants were asked to make a test bar parallel to a reference bar. This always resulted in large but systematic deviations. It will be shown that the results can be described with a model in which an egocentric reference frame biases the participants' settings: What a participant haptically perceives as parallel is a weighted average of parallel in allocentric space and parallel in egocentric space. The basis of the egocentric reference frame is uncertain. There is strong evidence that at least a hand-centred reference frame is involved, but possibly a body-centred reference frame also plays a role.     

Exogenous attention differentially modulates the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations

Carrasco and her colleagues have suggested that exogenous attention reduces the size of receptive fields at an attended location (Gobell & Carrasco, 2005; Yeshurun & Carrasco, 1998, 2000). Based on the hypothesis that categorical and coordinate spatial relations are more efficiently processed by smaller and larger receptive fields, respectively, we predicted that exogenous attention would be more beneficial to the processing of categorical spatial relations than coordinate spatial relations while it would disrupt the processing of coordinate spatial relations. To test these hypotheses, participants were tested using a variant of Posner's (1980) attentional cueing paradigm. Exogenous attention produced larger facilitative effects on categorical spatial processing than on coordinate spatial processing at a short cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (100 ms, Experiment 1, N = 28), and this result was replicated regardless of cue size in Experiment 2 (N = 24). When the coordinate judgment was sufficiently difficult, exogenous attention disrupted the processing of coordinate spatial relations (Experiment 3, N = 28). These findings indicate that exogenous attention can differentially modulate the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations.     

Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation

Four experiments investigated the nature of spatial representations used in locomotion. Participants learned the layout of several objects and then pointed to the objects while blindfolded in 3 conditions: before turning (baseline), after turning to a new heading (updating), and after disorientation (disorientation). The internal consistency of pointing in the disorientation condition was relatively high and equivalent to that in the baseline and updating conditions, when the layout had salient intrinsic axes and the participants learned the locations of the objects on the periphery of the layout. The internal consistency of pointing was disrupted by disorientation when participants learned the locations of objects while standing amid them and the layout did not have salient intrinsic axes. It was also observed that many participants retrieved spatial relations after disorientation from the original learning heading. These results indicate that people form an allocentric representation of object-to-object spatial relations when they learn the layout of a novel environment and use that representation to locate objects around them. Egocentric representations may be used to locate objects when allocentric representations are not of high fidelity.     

Egocentric/allocentric and coordinate/categorical haptic encoding in blind people

In this research, the impact of visual experience on the capacity to use egocentric (body-centered) and allocentric (object-centered) representations in combination with categorical (invariant non-metric) and coordinate (variable metric) spatial relations was examined. Participants memorized through haptic (congenitally blind, adventitiously blind, and blindfolded) and haptic + visual (sighted) exploration triads of 3D objects and then they were asked to judge: "which object was closest/farthest to you?" (egocentric-coordinate); "which object was on your left/right?" (egocentric-categorical); "which object was closest/farthest to a target object (e.g., cone)?" (allocentric-coordinate); "which object was on the left/right of the target object (e.g., cone)?" (allocentric-categorical). The results showed a slowdown in processing time when congenitally blind people provided allocentric-coordinate judgments and adventitiously blind people egocentric-categorical judgments. Moreover, in egocentric judgments, adventitiously blind participants were less accurate than sighted participants. However, the overall performance was quite good and this supports the idea that the differences observed are more quantitative than qualitative. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed.     

Differential developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory

We studied the development of spatial frames of reference in children aged 3-6 years, who retrieved hidden toys from an array of identical containers bordered by landmarks under four conditions. By moving the child and/or the array between presentation and test, we varied the consistency of the hidden toy with (i) the body, and (ii) the testing room. The toy's position always remained consistent with (iii) the array and bordering landmarks. We found separate, additive performance advantages for consistency with body and room. These effects were already present at 3 years. A striking finding was that the room effect, which implies allocentric representations of the room and/or egocentric representations updated by self-motion, was much stronger in the youngest children than the body effect, which implies purely egocentric representations. Children as young as 3 years therefore had, and greatly favoured, spatial representations that were not purely egocentric. Viewpoint-independent recall based only on the array and bordering landmarks emerged at 5 years. There was no evidence that this later-developing ability, which implies object-referenced (intrinsic) representations, depended on verbal encodings. These findings indicate that core components of adult spatial competence, including parallel egocentric and nonegocentric representations of space, are present as early as 3 years. These are supplemented by later-developing object-referenced representations.     

Development of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations from childhood to elderly age

Spatial reference frames are fundamental to represent the position of objects or places. Although research has reported changes in spatial memory abilities during childhood and elderly age, no study has assessed reference frames processing during the entire lifespan using the same task. Here, we aimed at providing some preliminary data on the capacity to process reference frames in 283 healthy participants from 6 to 89 years of age. A spatial memory task requiring egocentric/allocentric verbal judgments about objects in peri-/extrapersonal space was used. The main goals were: (1) tracing a baseline of the normal process of development of these spatial components; (2) clarifying if reference frames are differently vulnerable to age-related effects. Results showed a symmetry between children of 6–7 years and older people of 80–89 years who were slower and less accurate than all other age groups. As regards processing time, age had a strong effect on the allocentric component, especially in extrapersonal space, with a longer time in 6- to 7-year-old children and 80- to 89-year-old adults. The egocentric component looked less affected by aging. Regarding the level of spatial ability (accuracy), the allocentric ability appeared less sensitive to age-related variations, whereas the egocentric ability progressively improved from 8 years and declined from 60 years. The symmetry in processing time and level of spatial ability is discussed in relation to the development of executive functions and to the structural and functional changes due to incomplete maturation (in youngest children) and deterioration (in oldest adults) of underlying cerebral areas.     

Distinct task-independent visual thresholds for egocentric and allocentric information pick up

The dominant view of the ventral and dorsal visual systems is that they subserve perception and action. De Wit, Van der Kamp, and Masters (2011) suggested that a more fundamental distinction might exist between the nature of information exploited by the systems. The present study distinguished between these accounts by asking participants to perform delayed matching (perception), pointing (action) and perceptual judgment responses to masked Müller-Lyer stimuli of varying length. Matching and pointing responses of participants who could not perceptually judge stimulus length at brief durations remained sensitive to veridical stimulus length (egocentric information), but not the illusion (allocentric, context-dependent information), which was effective at long durations. Distinct thresholds for egocentric and allocentric information pick up were thus evident irrespective of whether perception (matching) or action (pointing) responses were required. It was concluded that the dorsal and ventral systems may be delineated fundamentally by fast egocentric- and slower allocentric information pick up, respectively.     

Intrinsic frames of reference and egocentric viewpoints in scene recognition

Three experiments investigated the roles of intrinsic directions of a scene and observer's viewing direction in recognizing the scene. Participants learned the locations of seven objects along an intrinsic direction that was different from their viewing direction and then recognized spatial arrangements of three or six of these objects from different viewpoints. The results showed that triplets with two objects along the intrinsic direction (intrinsic triplets) were easier to recognize than triplets with two objects along the study viewing direction (non-intrinsic triplets), even when the intrinsic triplets were presented at a novel test viewpoint and the non-intrinsic triplets were presented at the familiar test viewpoint. The results also showed that configurations with the same three or six objects were easier to recognize at the familiar test viewpoint than other viewpoints. These results support and develop the model of spatial memory and navigation proposed by Mou, McNamara, Valiquette, and Rump [Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquiette C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 142-157].     

The roles of categorical and coordinate spatial relations in recognizing buildings

Categorical spatial information is considered more useful for recognizing objects, and coordinate spatial information for guiding actions??for example, during navigation or grasping. In contrast with this assumption, we hypothesized that buildings, unlike other categories of objects, require both categorical and coordinate spatial information in order to be recognized. This hypothesis arose from evidence that right-brain-damaged patients have deficits in both coordinate judgments and recognition of buildings and from the fact that buildings are very useful for guiding navigation in urban environments. To test this hypothesis, we assessed 210 healthy college students while they performed four different tasks that required categorical and coordinate judgments and the recognition of common objects and buildings. Our results showed that both categorical and coordinate spatial representations are necessary to recognize a building, whereas only categorical representations are necessary to recognize an object. We discuss our data in view of a recent neural framework for visuospatial processing, suggesting that recognizing buildings may specifically activate the parieto-medial-temporal pathway.