2013 Vol. 45 No.7 752761 Acta Psychologica Sinica DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00752 * ( 210023) 240БЛ 3 ; ; ; ; B842 1 БcБc (egocentric) (Avraamides & Kelly 2008; Burgess 2006; Easton & Sholl 1995) (allocentric) ( ) ( McNamara Rump & Werner 2003; Mou McNamara Valiquette & Rump 2004; Roskos- Ewoldsen McNamara Shelton & Carr 1998; Shelton & McNamara 2001) (Waller & Hodgson 2006; Wang 2012)Wang (2012) (snapshot) (align) () Wang (the configuration error paradigm) (Wang & Spelke 2000) () ( ) 0БЛ 0БЛ : 20121221 * (31000457) : E-mail: xiaocl@nju.edu.cn 752
7 753 (-80БЛ) ( -80БЛ) 0БЛ 0БЛ - - () (Mou McNamara Rump & Xiao 2006; Sargent Dopkins Philbeck & Chichka 2010; Sargent Dopkins Philbeck & Modarres 2008; Waller & Hodgson 2006; Wang & Spelke 2000; Xiao Mou & McNamara 2009) ( ) Wang (Wang 2012; Wang & Spelke 2000 2002) Xiao Chen (2012) ( Бg Бh) (Judgment of Relevant Direction JRD)JRD Бg A B CБh ( Roskos-Ewoldsen et al. 1998; Shelton & McNamara 2001; Waller & Hodgson 2006) JRD (Diwadkar & McNamara 1997; Shelton & McNamara 1997) Wang Spelke (2000 2002) Wang (2012) (the functional equivalence hypothesis e.g. Loomis Klatzky Avraamides Lippa & Golledge 2007) (proprioception) 1 (Giudice Betty & Loomis 2011; Newell Woods Mernagh & Blthoff 2005) (Yamamoto & Shelton 2009)(Yamamoto & Shelton 2005 2007) (Greenauer & Waller 2008; Mou & McNamara 2002; Shelton & McNamara 2001) 1 ( )() (efference copy ) (Waller & Greenauer 2007; Waller Loomis & Haun 2004; Yamamoto & Shelton 2007)
754 45 (orientation dependent) (Wang 2004) (Giudice et al. 2011) (Waller Montello Richardson & Hegarty 2002) (Holmes & Sholl 2005; Mou et al. 2006; Sargent et al. 2010; Sargent et al. 2008; Waller & Hodgson 2006; Wang & Spelke 2000; Xiao et al. 2009) JRD JRD (Yamamoto & Shelton 2009) JRD (Yamamoto & Shelton 2005) JRD (Yamamoto & Shelton 2007) JRD Wang (2012) Wang (2012) Xiao Chen (2012) - (Foo Warren Duchon & Tarr 2005) JRD Wang (2012) (Xiao & Chen 2012; Xiao et al. 2009) JRD 2 2.1 32 (16 16 ) 19~26 2.2 Xiao Chen (2012) Xiao (2009) 1 3 m 9 ( 0.3 m) ---- 120БЛ 1 (trial)бgбh( Бg Бh)JRD
7 755 ( Бg Бh) ( БgБh) 2.3 JRD 3 ; / 240БЛ /; / / 9 4 Xiao Chen (2012) Xiao (2009) ( 1)(1)(signed pointing error) ; (2)(pointing latency) ; (3)(heading error) (Mou et al. 2006); (4) (configuration error) ; (5)(pointing variability) 360БЛ (circular statistics) (Jammalamadaka & SenGupta 2001) JRD 8 6 48 0БЛ 0БЛ 315БЛ 45БЛ 8 Б}15БЛ ( 1.56БЛ 0БЛ )() 3 (45БЛ~0БЛ 0БЛ~315БЛ) (315БЛ~225БЛ 135БЛ~45БЛ ) (135БЛ~225БЛ) (1) 4 ; (2) ; (3) 1 i j e ij = i e. i i e.. j e ij T e i N i. e 2 i. e.. i N 1 e 2 ij ei. j T 1 N T = ; N = 2.4 JRD ( 1 ) 30
756 45 ( ) 3 - ( ) (Бg Бh) //( БgБh) / 1 /(БgБh) / 90БЛ / 1 / 90БЛ /(Бg Бh) JRD 3 3.1 (M = 4.88 SD = 1.26) (M = 6.40 SD = 1.45) t(29) = 3.13 p < 0.01. 3.2 SPSS 19 2 () Б~ 2 () Б~ 3 () ANOVA (Holmes & Sholl 2005; Mou et al. 2006; Waller & Hodgson 2006; Wang & Spelke 2000; Xiao et al. 2009) 2 30БЛ (Mou et al. 2006) 120БЛ 2 () Б~ 3 () ANOVA 2 3 () 1.38 (0.42) 2.28 (1.20) 2.63 (1.64) B < U; B < D; U = D 1.36 (0.38) 3.01 (2.14) 2. 66 (1.54) B < U; B < D; U = D 4.93 (4.29) 16.32 (7.05) 29.90 (22.09) B < U; B < D; U < D 6.01 (5.71) 16.44 (13.90) 24.52 (10.90) B < U; B < D; U = D 12.13 (3.30) 18.54 (6.89) 18.21 (5.71) B < U; B < D; U = D 9.65 (3.82) 17.52 (6.84) 16.41 (6.73) B < U; B < D; U = D Бg<Бh.05 Бg=Бh.05 B = ; U =; D =
7 757 F(2 60)= 4.77 p < 0.05 MSE = 60.76; F(1 30)= 3.99 p = 0.055 MSE = 26.97; F(2 60)= 4.58 p < 0.05 MSE = 60.76 2 3 Xiao Chen (2012) F(1 30)=10.33 p < 0.005 MSE = 146.58 F(1 30)< 1 Xiao Chen (2012) Fs (1 30)< 1 F(1 30)= 7.62 p < 0.01 MSE = 114.67 pattern 0БЛ90БЛ180БЛ270БЛ 45БЛ 135БЛ225БЛ315БЛ e.g. Mou & McNamara 2002) Fs (1 30)< 1 0БЛ 180БЛ 0БЛ-180БЛ F(1 30)= 9.58 p < 0.005 MSE =168.73 0БЛ F(1 30)< 1 ANOVA Fs 1.19 ps 0.31 F(7 210)= 2.63 p < 0.05 MSE =5.54. 2 3.3 JRD SPSS 19 2 () Б~ 2 ( ) Б~ 8 () ANOVA 3 ANOVA JRD Fs1.41 ps0.20 - F(7 210)= 3.98 p < 0.001 MSE = 181.23 JRD (the sawtooth 3 JRD 4 (Xiao & Chen 2012) JRD JRD Xiao Chen (2012) Wang (2012) (Loomis et al. 2007)
758 45 1 ; 2 (Waller & Hodgson 2006) () 31БЛ ( 104БЛ) (Mou et al. 2006; Waller & Hodgson 2006) (Wang 2012) JRD JRD - JRD 0БЛ 180БЛ 0БЛ-180БЛ 0БЛ Yamamoto Shelton (2007) JRD 0БЛ Yamamoto Shelton 6 9 (Xiao et al. 2009) 3 (Giudice et al. 2011) (isomorphic representations); ; (amodal representation) (Giudice et al. 2011; Kelly Avraamides & Giudice 2011) 3 () 3 (Klatzky 1998) () 5
7 759 (Xiao & Chen 2012) Wang (2012) (Loomis et al. 2007) Avraamides M. N. & Kelly J. W. (2008). Multiple systems of spatial memory and action. Cognitive Processing 9 93106. Burgess N. (2006). Spatial memory: How egocentric and allocentric combine. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 551557. Diwadkar V. A. & McNamara T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychological Science 8 302307. Easton R. D. & Sholl M. J. (1995). Object-array structure frames of reference and retrieval of spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 21 483500. Foo P. Warren W. H. Duchon A. & Tarr M. J. (2005). Do humans integrate routes into a cognitive map? Map- versus landmark-based navigation of novel shortcuts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 31 195215. Giudice N. A. Betty M. R. & Loomis J. M. (2011). Functional equivalence of spatial images from touch and vision: Evidence from spatial updating in blind and sighted individuals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 37 621634. Greenauer N. & Waller D. (2008). Intrinsic array structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for nonegocentric coding of spatial layouts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15 10151021. Holmes M. C. & Sholl M. J. (2005). Allocentric coding of object-to-object relations in overlearned and novel environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 31 10691087. Jammalamadaka S. R. & SenGupta A. (2001). Topics in circular statistics. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. Kelly J. W. Avraamides M. N. & Giudice N. A. (2011). Haptic experiences influence visually acquired memories: Reference frames during multimodal spatial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18 11191125. Klatzky R. L. (1998). Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions distinctions and interconnections. In C. Freksa C. Habel & K. F. Wender (Eds.) Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge LNAI 1404 (pp. 117). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Loomis J. M. Klatzky R. L. Avraamides M. Lippa Y. & Golledge R. G. (2007). Functional equivalence of spatial images produced by perception and spatial language. In F. Mast & L. Jncke (Eds.) Spatial processing in navigation imagery and perception (pp. 2948). New York NY: Springer. McNamara T. P. Rump B. & Werner S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 589595. Mou W. & McNamara T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 28 162170. Mou W. McNamara T. P. Rump B. & Xiao C. (2006). Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 32 12741290. Mou W. McNamara T. P. Valiquette C. M. & Rump B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 30 142157. Newell F. N. Woods A. T. Mernagh M. & Blthoff H. H. (2005). Visual haptic and crossmodal recognition of scenes. Experimental Brain Research 161 233242. Roskos-Ewoldsen B. McNamara T. P. Shelton A. & Carr W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 24 215226. Sargent J. Dopkins S. Philbeck J. & Chichka D. (2010). Chunking in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 36 576589. Sargent J. Dopkins S. Philbeck J. & Modarres R. (2008). Spatial memory during progressive disorientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 34 602615. Shelton A. L. & McNamara T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4 102106. Shelton A. L. & McNamara T. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology 43 274310. Waller D. & Greenauer N. (2007). The role of body-based sensory information in the acquisition of enduring spatial representations. Psychological Research 71 322332. Waller D. & Hodgson E. (2006). Transient and enduring spatial representations under disorientation and self-rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 32 867882. Waller D. Loomis J. M. & Haun D. B. M. (2004). Body-based senses enhance knowledge of directions in large-scale environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 157163. Waller D. Montello D. R. Richardson A. E. & Hegarty M. (2002). Orientation specificity and spatial updating of memories for layouts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 28 10511063. Wang R. F. (2004). Between reality and imagination: When is spatial updating automatic? Perception & Psychophysics 66 6876. Wang R. F. (2012). Theories of spatial representations and reference frames: What can configuration errors tell us? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 19 575587. Wang R. F. & Spelke E. S. (2000). Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition 77 215250. Wang R. F. & Spelke E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: Insights from animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 376382. Xiao C. & Chen F. (2012). Stable self-to-object spatial relations acquired from sequential spatial learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science
760 45 Society Sapporo Japan. Xiao C. Mou W. & McNamara T. P. (2009). Use of self-to-object and object-to-object spatial relations in locomotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 35 11371147. Yamamoto N. & Shelton A. L. (2005). Visual and proprioceptive representations in spatial memory. Memory & Cognition 33 140150. Yamamoto N. & Shelton A. L. (2007). Path information effects in visual and proprioceptive spatial learning. Acta Psychologica 125 346360. Yamamoto N. & Shelton A. L. (2009). Orientation dependence of spatial memory acquired from auditory experience. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16 301305. Stable Egocentric Representation Acquired from Sequential Proprioceptive Learning XIAO Chengli (Department of Psychology School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Nanjing University Nanjing 210023 China) Abstract It is generally believed that the egocentric representation is transient and primarily supported by perception. However recent theories suggest that the egocentric representation can be an enduring component and preserved in memory. Wang (2012) proposed that the enduring egocentric representation also referred as the egocentric snapshot was stable and would not be disrupted by disorientation. She further suggested that the egocentric snapshot was not restricted to retinal images and could be acquired from other modalities. Her statement is consistent with the functional equivalence hypothesis (Loomis et al. 2007). These hypotheses were examined in the present study. Thirty two university students (16 men and 16 women) participated in this experiment in return for monetary compensation. Participants stood at a learning position amidst a geometrically irregular 9-object array. Half of them viewed the layout with objects being simultaneously presented and the other half were blindfolded and led to sequentially walk to each objectбfs location from the learning position (proprioceptive learning). After learning the layout all the participants were blindfolded and tested in the baseline updating and disorientation conditions in sequence. In the baseline condition participants maintained their heading to scissors. In the updating condition participants rotated 240БЛ by themselves. Within each group right before rotation half the participants were explicitly instructed to use allocentric spatial relations during locomotion. The other half were not given such instruction. In the disorientation condition participants rotated in situ until got disoriented. In each locomotion condition it included four blocks of trials each block involving pointing to all nine objects once in a random order. The major dependent measure was the configuration error defined as the standard deviation of the means per target object of the signed pointing errors which indicated the internal consistency of the pointing response among different targets. An increased configuration error after disorientation provides evidence of a disorientation effect indicating the use of the transient egocentric representation whereas an equivalent configuration error between these two conditions indicates the use of stable spatial relations. Finally all participants were taken to another room to perform judgments of relative direction (JRDs) among the remembered object locations. The JRDs test included 48 trials six trials at each of eight imagined headings (0БЛ to 315БЛ at 45БЛ intervals). The dependent measures were the absolute angular error and the latency of the pointing response. Configuration errors on egocentric pointing were subjected to mixed-model analyses of variance
7 761 (ANOVAs) with locomotion condition (baseline updating and disorientation) as the within subject variable learning modality (vision proprioception) and allocentric instruction (yes no) as the between subjects variables. The results revealed no main effects or interactions of allocentric instruction. The configuration errors increased after the rotation of the participants who visually learned the layout but were equivalent before and after the rotation of the participants who proprioceptively learned the layout. The configuration errors were indistinguishable for visual and proprioceptive learning in the baseline and the updating conditions but significantly larger for visual learning than for proprioceptive learning in the disorientation condition. Performance data on JRDs were subjected to mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with imagined heading (0БЛ to 315БЛ at 45БЛ intervals) as the within subject variance learning modality (vision proprioception) and allocentric instruction (yes no) as the between subjects variables. The results revealed no main effects or interactions of allocentric instruction. The participantsбf performance on JRDs was indistinguishable for visual learning and proprioceptive learning which indicated that participants constructed an allocentric spatial representation of equivalent fidelity through visual and proprioceptive learning. In conclusion the results in the present study provided evidence that participants constructed a stable egocentric representation when they proprioceptively learned the irregular object array. These results are parallel to Xiao & ChenБfs (2012) finding and support WangБfs (2012) generalization of the egocentric snapshot and functional equivalence hypothesis. Key words egocentric; proprioception; disorientation; snapshot; functional equivalence