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.
KeywordsSpatial cognition Egocentric representation Body Viewpoints
- 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
- Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A., & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 397–407.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory & Cognition, 29, 745–756.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 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