How Are the Locations of Objects in the Environment Represented in Memory?

  • Timothy P. McNamara
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2685)

Abstract

This chapter summarizes a new theory of spatial memory. According to the theory, when people learn the locations of objects in a new environment, they interpret the spatial structure of that environment in terms of a spatial reference system. Our current conjecture is that a reference system intrinsic to the collection of objects is used. Intrinsic axes or directions are selected using egocentric (e.g., viewing perspective) and environmental (e.g., walls of the surrounding room) cues. The dominant cue is egocentric experience. The reference system selected at the first view is typically not updated with additional views or observer movement. However, if the first view is misaligned but a subsequent view is aligned with natural and salient axes in the environment, a new reference system is selected and the layout is reinterpreted in terms of this new reference system. The chapter also reviews evidence on the orientation dependence of spatial memories and recent results indicating that two representations may be formed when people learn a new environment; one preserves interobject spatial relations and the other comprises visual memories of experienced views.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. A. (1999). Multimodal integration for the representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex. In N. Burgess, K. J. Jeffery, & J. O’Keefe (Eds.), The hippocampal and parietal foundations of spatial cognition (pp. 90–103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bryant, D. J., & Tversky, B. (1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christou, C. G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27, 996–1007.Google Scholar
  4. Diwadkar, V. A., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Viewpoint dependence in scene recognition. Psychological Science, 8, 302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Easton, R. D., & Sholl, M. J. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, G. W., & Pezdek, K. (1980). Cognitive mapping: Knowledge of real-world distance and location information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farrell, M. J., & Robertson, I. H. (1998). Mental rotation and the automatic updating of body-centered spatial relationships. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman, A., & Hall, D. L. (1996). The importance of being upright: Use of environmental and viewer-centered reference frames in shape discriminations of novel three-dimensional objects. Memory & Cognition, 24, 285–295.Google Scholar
  10. Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. S. (1994). A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Nature, 370, 57–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lansdale, M. W. (1998). Modeling memory for absolute location. Psychological Review, 105, 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Learmonth, A. E., Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2001). Toddlers’ use of metric information and landmarks to reorient. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levine, M., Jankovic, I. N., & Palij, M. (1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneaux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. McMullen, P. A., & Jolicoeur, P. (1990). The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections. Memory & Cognition, 18, 99–115.Google Scholar
  17. McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (in press). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.Google Scholar
  18. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Montello, D. R. (1991). Spatial orientation and the angularity of urban routes: A field study. Environment and Behavior, 23, 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Spatial memory and spatial updating. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Palmer, S. E. (1989). Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 121–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Presson, C. C., DeLange, N., & Hazelrigg, M. D. (1989). Orientation specificity in spatial memory: What makes a path different from a map of the path? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 887–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Presson, C. C., & Hazelrigg, M. D. (1984). Building spatial representations through primary and secondary learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 716–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447–1455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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, 741–750.Google Scholar
  27. Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1157–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rieser, J. J., Guth, D. A., & Hill, E. W. (1986). Sensitivity to perspective structure while walking without vision. Perception, 15, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rock, I. (1956). The orientation of forms on the retina and in the environment. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., McNamara, T. P., Shelton, A. L., & Carr, W. (1998). Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106.Google Scholar
  34. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001a). Spatial memory and perspective taking. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  35. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001b). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 274–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001c). Visual memories from nonvisual experiences. Psychological Science, 12, 343–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sholl, M. J. (1987). Cognitive maps as orienting schemata. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sholl, M. J., & Nolin, T. L. (1997). Orientation specificity in representations of place. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1494–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simons, D. J., & Wang, R. F. (1998). Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychological Science, 9, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky, B. (1981). Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valiquette, C. M., McNamara, T. P., & Smith, K. (2002). Locomotion, incidental learning, and the orientation dependence of spatial memory. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  43. Vetter, T., Poggio, T., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1994). The importance of symmetry and virtual views in three-dimensional object recognition. Current Biology, 4, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang, R. F. (1999). Representing a stable environment by egocentric updating and invariant representations. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Werner, S., & Schmidt, K. (1999). Environmental reference systems for large scale spaces. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy P. McNamara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyVanderbilt UniversityNashville

Personalised recommendations