How Are the Locations of Objects in the Environment Represented in Memory?
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.
KeywordsReference System Spatial Memory Spatial Relation Orientation Dependence Angular Error
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- Christou, C. G., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1999). View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Memory & Cognition, 27, 996–1007.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Spatial memory and spatial updating. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106.Google Scholar
- Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001a). Spatial memory and perspective taking. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Valiquette, C. M., McNamara, T. P., & Smith, K. (2002). Locomotion, incidental learning, and the orientation dependence of spatial memory. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar