Abstract
Theories of Enactivism propose an action-oriented approach to understand human cognition. So far, however, empirical evidence supporting these theories has been sparse. Here, we investigate whether spatial navigation based on allocentric reference frames that are independent of the observer’s physical body can be understood within an action-oriented approach. Therefore, we performed three experiments testing the knowledge of the absolute orientation of houses and streets towards north, the relative orientation of two houses and two streets, respectively, and the location of houses towards each other in a pointing task. Our results demonstrate that under time pressure, the relative orientation of two houses can be retrieved more accurately than the absolute orientation of single houses. With infinite time for cognitive reasoning, the performance of the task using house stimuli increased greatly for the absolute orientation and surpassed the slightly improved performance in the relative orientation task. In contrast, with streets as stimuli participants performed under time pressure better in the absolute orientation task. Overall, pointing from one house to another house yielded the best performance. This suggests, first, that orientation and location information about houses are primarily coded in house-to-house relations, whereas cardinal information is deduced via cognitive reasoning. Second, orientation information for streets is preferentially coded in absolute orientations. Thus, our results suggest that spatial information about house and street orientation is coded differently and that house orientation and location is primarily learned in an action-oriented way, which is in line with an enactive framework for human cognition.
References
Bonner, M. F., & Epstein, R. A. (2017). Coding of navigational affordances in the human visual system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618228114.
Burgess, N. (2006). Spatial memory: how egocentric and allocentric combine. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(12), 551–557. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.005.
Burte, H., & Hegarty, M. (2012). Revisiting the Relationship between Allocentric-Heading Recall and Self-Reported Sense of Direction. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 162–167).
Burte, H., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Allignment effects and allocentric-headings within a relative heading task. Spatial Cognition IX. Spatial Cognition, 2014, 8684. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_4.
Byrne, P., Becker, S., & Burgess, N. (2007). Remembering the past and imagining the future: a neural model of spatial memory and imagery. Psychological Review, 114, 340–375.
Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2014). From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112544.
Diwadkar, V. A., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependance in scene recognition. Psychological Science, 8(4), 302–307. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00442.x.
Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(5), 202–209. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006.
Frankenstein, J., Mohler, B. J., Bülthoff, H. H., & Meilinger, T. (2012). Is the map in our head oriented north? Psychological Science, 23(2), 120–125. doi:10.1177/0956797611429467.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). Perceiving (pp. 67–82). Acting and Knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. the theory of affordances.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Theory of Affordances. In The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (pp. 127–143).
Goeke, C. M., König, P., & Gramann, K. (2013). Different strategies for spatial updating in yaw and pitch path integration. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 7, 5. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00005.
Goeke, C. M., Kornpetpanee, S., Köster, M., Fernández-Revelles, A. B., Gramann, K., & König, P. (2015). Cultural background shapes spatial reference frame proclivity. Scientific reports. doi:10.1038/srep11426.
Gramann, K. (2013). Embodiment of spatial reference frames and individual differences in reference frame proclivity. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 13(1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/13875868.2011.589038.
Greenauer, N., & Waller, D. (2008). Intrinsic array structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for nonegocentric coding of spatial layouts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 1015–1021. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.5.1015.
Greene, M. R., & Oliva, A. (2009). Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: seeing the forest without representing the trees. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 137–176. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.06.001.
Haith, M. M., & Benson, J. B. A. (1998). Infant Cognition. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th edition) volume 2: Cognition, perception, and language. Hoboken: Wiley.
Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93–129. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003.
Kaspar, K., König, S., Schwandt, J., & König, P. (2014). The experience of new sensorimotor contingencies by sensory augmentation. Consciousness and Cognition, 28, 47–63. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.06.006.
Kelly, J. W., Avraamides, M. N., & Loomis, J. M. (2007). Sensorimotor alignment effects in the learning environment and in novel environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1092–1107. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1092.
Kelly, J. W., & McNamara, T. P. (2008). Spatial memories of virtual environments: How egocentric experience, intrinsic structure, and extrinsic structure interact. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 322–327.
Klatzky, R. (1998). Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In Spatial cognition - An interdisciplinary approach to representation and processing of spatial knowledge (pp. 1–17). doi:10.1007/3-540-69342-4 (September 1997).
König, S. U., Schumann, F., Keyser, J., Goeke, C., Krause, C., Wache, S., et al. (2016). Learning new sensorimotor contingencies: effects of long-term use of sensory augmentation on the brain and conscious perception. Plos One, 11, 1–35. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166647.
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., Cicinelli, J. G., Pellegrino, J. W., & Fry, P. A. (1993). Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(1), 73–91. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.1.73.
Mallot, H. A., & Basten, K. (2009). Embodied spatial cognition: biological and artificial systems. Image and Vision Computing, 27(11), 1658–1670. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2008.09.001.
Masters, M. S., & Sanders, B. (1993). Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behavior Genetics, 23(4), 337–341. doi:10.1007/BF01067434.
Maye, A., & Engel, A. K. (2011). A discrete computational model of sensorimotor contingencies for object perception and control of behavior. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. doi:10.1109/ICRA.2011.5979919.
Maye, A., & Engel, A. K. (2012). Time scales of sensorimotor contingencies. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (vol. 7366 LNAI, pp. 240–249). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31561-9_27.
Maye, A., & Engel, A. K. (2013). Extending sensorimotor contingency theory: prediction, planning, and action generation. Adaptive Behavior, 21(6), 423–436. doi:10.1177/1059712313497975.
McNamara, T. P. (2002). How are the Locations of Objects in the Environment Represented in Memory? In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial Cognition III: Routes and Navigation, Human Memory and Learning, Spatial Representation and Spatial Learning (pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/3-540-45004-1_11.
McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 589–595. doi:10.3758/BF03196519.
McNamara, T. P., Sluzenski, J., & Rump, B. (2008). 2.11-Human Spatial Memory and Navigation. doi:10.1016/b078-012370509-9.00176-5.
Meilinger, T. (2008a). The network of reference frames theory: a synthesis of graphs and cognitive maps. In Spatial Cognition VI. Learning, Reasoning, and Talking (pp. 344–360). http://www.springerlink.com/index/y22uq32mg0347887.
Meilinger, T. (2008b). Strategies of orientation in environmental spaces. biological cybernetics. Tübingen: MPI for Biological Cybernetics.
Meilinger, T., Frankenstein, J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2013). Learning to navigate: experience versus maps. Cognition, 129(1), 24–30. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.013.
Meilinger, T., Frankenstein, J., Watanabe, K., Bülthoff, H. H., & Hölscher, C. (2015). Reference frames in learning from maps and navigation. Psychological Research, 79(6), 1000–1008. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0629-6.
Meilinger, T., Riecke, B. E., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2014). Local and global reference frames for environmental spaces. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 67(3), 1–28. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.821145.
Meilinger, T., Strickrodt, M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2016). Qualitative differences in memory for vista and environmental spaces are caused by opaque borders, not movement or successive presentation. Cognition, 155, 77–95. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2016.06.003.
Moffat, S. D., Hampson, E., & Hatzipantelis, M. (1998). Navigation in a “Virtual” maze: sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(519), 73–87. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00104-9.
Montello, D. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space. Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS. doi:10.1007/3-540-57207-4_21.
Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 162–170. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.162.
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(6), 1274–1290. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1274.
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(1), 142–157. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.142.
Nardini, M., Burgess, N., Breckenridge, K., & Atkinson, J. (2006). Differential developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Cognition, 101(1), 153–172. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.09.005.
Newhouse, P., Newhouse, C., & Astur, R. S. (2007). Sex differences in visual-spatial learning using a virtual water maze in pre-pubertal children. Behavioural Brain Research, 183(1), 1–7.
Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.
O’Keefe, J. (1991). An allocentric spatial model for the Hippocampal cognitive map. Hippocampus, 1, 230–235.
O’Regan, J. K. (2011). Why red doesn’t sound like a bell: Understanding the feel of consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Regan, J. K., & Noe, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–1031. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000115.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The child’s conception of space. New York: FJ Langdon & JL Lunzer, Trans.
Poucet, B. (1993). Spatial cognitive maps in animals: New hypotheses on their structure and neural mechanisms. Psychological Review, 100, 163–182.
Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 741–750. doi:10.3758/BF03211566.
Riecke, B. E., Cunningham, D. W., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2007). Spatial updating in virtual reality: The sufficiency of visual information. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0085-z.
Sargent, J., Dopkins, S., Philbeck, J., & Modarres, R. (2008). Spatial memory during progressive disorientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 602.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(1), 102–106.
Sholl, M. J. (1987). Cognitive maps as orienting schemata. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(4), 615.
Sholl, M. J. (2008). Human allocentric heading orientation and ability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 275–280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00589.x.
Sholl, M. J., Kenny, R. J., & DellaPorta, K. A. (2006). Allocentric-heading recall and its relation to self-reported sense-of-direction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(3), 516.
Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large scale environments. Adv. Child Develop. Behav., 10, 9–55.
Simons, D. J., & Wang, R. F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science, 9, 315–320. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00062.
Street, W. N., & Wang, R. F. (2014). Differentiating spatial memory from spatial transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 602–608. doi:10.1037/a0035279.
Sun, H.-J., Chan, G. S. W., & Campos, J. L. (2004). Active navigation and orientation-free spatial representations. Memory & Cognition, 32(1), 51–71. doi:10.3758/BF03195820.
Trullier, O., Wiener, S. I., Berthoz, A., & Meyer, J. A. (1997). Biologically based artificial navigation systems: Review and prospects. Progress in Neurobiology, 51, 483–544.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. An International Journal of Complexity and, 1992, 328. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0149.1965.tb01386.x.
Waller, D., & Hodgson, E. (2006). Transient and enduring spatial representations under disorientation and self-rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 867–882. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.Innate.
Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition, 77(3), 215–250. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00105-0.
Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2002). Human spatial representation: insights from animals. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(9), 376–382.
Wiener, J. M., Büchner, S. J., & Hölscher, C. (2009). Taxonomy of human wayfinding tasks: a knowledge-based approach. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 9(2), 152–165. doi:10.1080/13875860902906496.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9(4), 625–36. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12613670.
Woolley, D. G., Vermaercke, B., de Beeck, H. O., Wagemans, J., Gantois, I., D’Hooge, R., et al. (2010). Sex differences in human virtual water maze performance: Novel measures reveal the relative contribution of directional responding and spatial knowledge. Behavioural Brain Research, 208(2), 408–414.
Acknowledgements
Most of all, we would like to thank all the people who helped with recording and preparing the stimuli. Especially, we thank Antonia Kaiser and Annete Aumeistere, who helped a lot with the recordings.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CG, SUK, and TM wrote the main manuscript. SUK wrote the revision of the manuscript and provided new figures and tables for the revised paper. PK, CG, and TM proofread and iteratively improved the revised manuscript. SUK and CG recorded the experimental data. CG implemented the study and analyzed the data. PK suggested the study design and procedures for analysis and supervised the study.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Funding
This work was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 program, H2020-FETPROACT-2014, SEP: 210141273, ID: 641321 socSMCs.
Human and animal rights statement
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional and National Research Committees.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Sabine U. König and Caspar Goeke shared first authorship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
König, S.U., Goeke, C., Meilinger, T. et al. Are allocentric spatial reference frames compatible with theories of Enactivism?. Psychological Research 83, 498–513 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0899-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0899-x