Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 166, Issue 3–4, pp 481–488 | Cite as

Visual and haptic representations of scenes are updated with observer movement

  • Achille Pasqualotto
  • Ciara M. Finucane
  • Fiona N. Newell
Research Article

Abstract

Scene recognition has been found to be sensitive to the orientation of the scene with respect to the stationary observer. Recent studies have shown, however, that observer movement can compensate for changes in visual scene orientation, through a process of spatial updating. Here we investigated whether spatial updating in scene recognition is affected by the encoding or learning modality by examining whether observer movement can also compensate for orientation changes in haptic scene recognition. In experiment 1, we replicated previously reported effects of observer movement on visual scene recognition. In experiment 2, we used the same apparatus as in experiment 1 but here participants were required to learn and recognize the scenes using touch alone. We found a cost in recognition performance with changes in scene orientation relative to the stationary observer. However, when participants could move around the scene to recognize the new orientation, then this cost in recognition performance disappeared. Thus, we found that spatial updating applies to recognition in both the visual and haptic modalities, both of which intrinsically encode the spatial properties of a scene.

Keywords

Scene perception Vision Haptics Orientation-dependency Egocentric and body-centred representations Spatial updating 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Higher Education Authority, PRTLI grant awarded to the Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, of which F.N.N. is a member.

References

  1. Avraamides MN (2003) Spatial updating of environments described in texts. Cognit Psychol 47:402–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Christou CG, Bülthoff HH (1999) View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Mem Cognit 27:996–1007PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Christou CG, Tjan BS, Bülthoff HH (2003) Extrinsic cues aid shape recognition from novel viewpoints. J Vis 3:183–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Diwadkar VA, McNamara TP (1997) Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychol Sci 8:302–307Google Scholar
  5. Easton RD, Sholl MJ (1995) Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 21:483–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hollins M, Kelley EK (1988) Spatial updating in blind and sighted people. Percept Psychophys 43:380–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Israel I, Ventre-Dominey J, Denise P (1999) Vestibular information contributes to update retinotopic maps. Neuroreport 10:3479–3483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kappers AML, Koenderink JJ (1999) Haptic perception of spatial relations. Perception 28:781–795PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Klatzky RL (1999) Path completion after haptic exploration without vision: implications for haptic spatial representations. Percept Psychophys 61:220–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Klatzky RL, Lippa Y, Loomis JM, Golledge RG (2002) Learning directions of objects specified by vision, spatial audition, or auditory spatial language. Learn Mem 9:364–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Klatzky RL, Lippa Y, Loomis JM, Golledge RG (2003) Encoding, learning, and spatial updating of multiple object locations specified by 3-D sound, spatial language, and vision. Exp Brain Res 149:48–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lederman SL, Klatzky RL, Barber PO (1985) Spatial and movement-based heuristics for encoding pattern information through touch. J Exp Psychol Gen 114:33–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Loomis JM, Klatzky RL, Golledge GR, Cicinelli GJ, Pellegrino WJ, Fry AP (1993) Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:73–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Millar S, Al-Attar Z (2002) The Muller–Lyer illusion in touch and vision: implications for multisensory processes. Percept Psychophys 64:353–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Millar S, Al-Attar Z (2004) External and body-centered frames of reference in spatial memory: evidence from touch. Percept Psychophys 66:51–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakatani C, Pollatsek A, Johnson SH (2002) Viewpoint-dependent recognition of scenes. Q J Exp Psychol A 55:115–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Newell FN (2004) Crossmodal object recognition. In: Calvert GA, Spence C, Stein BE (eds) The handbook of multisensory processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp 123–140Google Scholar
  18. Newell FN, Findlay JM (1997) The effect of depth rotation on object identification. Perception 26:1231–1257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Newell FN, Woods AT, Mernagh M, Bülthoff HH (2005) Visual, haptic and cross-modal recognition of scenes. Exp Brain Res 161(2):233–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rieser JJ (1989) Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 15:1157–1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Rieser JJ, Garing AE, Young MF (1994) Imagery, action, and young children’s spatial orientation: it’s not being there that counts, it’s what one has in mind. Child Dev 65:1262–1278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rossano MJ, Warren DH (1989) Misaligned maps lead to predictable errors. Perception 18:215–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Simons DJ, Wang RF (1998) Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychol Sci 9:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simons DJ, Wang RF, Roddenberry D (2002) Object recognition is mediated by extraretinal information. Percept Psychophys 64:521–530PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tarr MJ, Bülthoff HH (1998) Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine. Cognition 67:1–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang RF (1999) Representing a stable environment by egocentric updating and invariant representations. Spat Cogn Comput 1:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang RF (2004) Between reality and imagination: when is spatial updating automatic?. Percept Psychophys 66:68–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang RF, Simons DJ (1999) Active and passive scene recognition across views. Cognition 70:191–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang RF, Spelke ES (2000) Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition 77:215–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Worchel P (1951) Space perception and orientation in the blind. Psychol Monogr 65:1–28Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Achille Pasqualotto
    • 1
  • Ciara M. Finucane
    • 1
  • Fiona N. Newell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Institute of NeuroscienceUniversity of DublinDublin 2Ireland

Personalised recommendations