Human Studies

, Volume 33, Issue 2–3, pp 221–227 | Cite as

What is Special About Body Based Reference Frame?

Research Paper

Abstract

Classifying spatial frames of references have placed egocentric/body-based representations on muddy grounds. The traditional taxonomy places it under the deictic distinction while the Levinson’s terminology does not provide a special status for it but classifies it along with the relative frame of reference. Research from other areas of cognition has come up with other implied classifications that are motivated by the special role played by these egocentric representation(s). Tangled among such issues is the fuzzy distinction between egocentric and body based representations. The current paper takes up exactly this issue and proposes to sub classify egocentric representations into two different subtypes namely the first- and the second-order representations. The proposed distinction serves an essential purpose for understanding important cognitive processes like spatial transformation, mental perspective taking, and so on.

Keywords

Spatial cognition Egocentric representation Body Viewpoints 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant managed through the Graduate School of the Centre of Excellence “Cognitive Interaction Technology”, University of Bielefeld, Germany.

References

  1. Amorim, M.-A., Michel-Ange, Isableu, B., & Jarraya, M. (2006). Embodied spatial transformations: “Body-Analogy” for the mental rotation of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135, 327–347.Google Scholar
  2. Amorim, M.-A., & Stucchi, N. (1997). Viewer–and object-centered mental explorations of an imagined environment are not equivalent. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arzy, S., Thut, G., Mohr, C., Michel, C. M., & Blanke, O. (2006). Neural basis of embodiment: distinct contributions of temporoparietal junction and extrastriate body area. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 8074–8081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanke, O., Mohr, C., Michel, C. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Brugger, P., Seeck, M., et al. (2005). Linking out-of-body experience and self processing to mental own-body imagery at the temporoparietal junction. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Irwin, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition, 46, 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creem, S. H., Downs, T. H., Wraga, M., Proffitt, D. R., & Downs, J. H., I. I. I. (2001). An fMRI study of imagined self-rotation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A., & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 397–407.Google Scholar
  8. Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graf, M. (1994). Coordinate transformation in object recognition. Psychological Science, 16, 214–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: A hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 501–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khetrapal, N. (2010). Achieving Common Grounds in Communication via Interfaces: A Role of Spatial Frames for Reference. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science. doi:10.1007/s10202-010-0084-4.
  13. Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29, 745–756.Google Scholar
  14. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., Rasch, B., & Blajenkova, O. (2006). Perspective-taking vs. mental rotation transformations and how they predict spatial navigation performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s questions: Cross linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thakkar, K. N., Brugger, P., & Park, S. (2009). Exploring empathic space: Correlates of perspective transformation ability and biases in spatial attention. PLoS One, 4, e5864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition, 77, 215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wohlschlager, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 358, 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2000). Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Information TechnologyDeoghat, JhalwaIndia

Personalised recommendations