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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
For the present concerns, such representations will be treated separately from any reference to the human body including the viewer’s perspective.
Personal communication by Kessler .
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.
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.
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.
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.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Irwin, D. E. (1993). Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? Cognition, 46, 223–244.
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.
Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A., & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory & Cognition, 23(4), 397–407.
Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(1), 63–76.
Graf, M. (1994). Coordinate transformation in object recognition. Psychological Science, 16, 214–221.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.
Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: A hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 501–507.
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.
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.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
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.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 162–170.
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.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.
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.
Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129.
Wang, R. F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition, 77, 215–250.
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.
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.
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.
This paper was written while the author was at the Centre of Excellence “Cognitive Interaction Technology” and Faculty of Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Bielefeld, Germany.
About this article
Cite this article
Khetrapal, N. What is Special About Body Based Reference Frame?. Hum Stud 33, 221–227 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-010-9161-x
- Spatial cognition
- Egocentric representation