Psychological Development and Education ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 385-394.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.04.01

    Next Articles

The Variety of Position Representation in Reorientation: Evidence from Virtual Reality Experiment

LI Weijia, HU Qingfen   

  1. Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
  • Online:2018-07-15 Published:2018-07-15

Abstract: The cognitive mechanisms of spatial reorientation in adults and children have long been hotly debated issues, among which whether individuals could form a holistic representation of navigating space is a key question. So far, there is still no consensus about how individuals maintain the information about their spatial surroundings. Some theories propose that people can form a cognitive map which is an abstract and orientation-free representation of the entire space, while some researchers argue that people can use the image-matching strategy to relocate the target, and a holistic representation of the space is not necessary in reorientation.
The present study aimed to reveal what strategy participants would use in the relocated task. Using the virtual reality technology, we allowed participants to observe the environment from both aerial and ground perspectives. Thirty-four participants first learned the target position in a square enclosure from the ground perspective. Then they were tested with four aerial views of the learning enclosure, and the aerial views varied in their orientation, in which the right position was at TOP, RIGHT, BOTTOM, and LEFT respectively.
Based on their accuracy, we divided participants into 3 group:absolute accuracy (the accuracy was 100%), high accuracy (the accuracy was more than 50% and less than 100%), and low accuracy (the accuracy was no more than 50%).
Reaction time analyses showed that the absolute accuracy group responded quickly in all the orientations, indicating that they might form a holistic and orientation-free spatial representation. In contrast, participants in the high accuracy group were faster in responding to the target position at the top of the display while they were slower in responding to the target position at the bottom of the display, which indicated that they formed a holistic and orientation-specific spatial representation. The low accuracy group was excluded from the analyses because a large proportion of their reaction time data was missing. Participants in this group might use the image-matching strategy in reorientation, which may lead to their failure to complete the present task.
Moreover, we found that, for most participants, their accuracies varied in different enclosures, which showed that they might choose different spatial strategies in different time. This result demonstrated that the same individual may rely on more than one type of spatial representation and one's choice of spatial strategies may fluctuate over time. the three kinds of space representation all exist in human's space representation. People do not choose the same strategy for all the time.
In sum, there are three types of spatial representations in spatial orientation:the abstract and orientation-free spatial representation, the entire and orientation-specific spatial representation. and the image-matching representation. There is clear individual difference on spatial representations and the spatial representation is not consistent.

Key words: position representation, reorientation, virtual reality, individual difference

CLC Number: 

  • B844

Cartwright, B.A., & Collett, T.S. (1982). How honey bees use landmarks to guide their return to a food source. Nature, 295, 560-564.Cheng, K. (1986). A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation. Cognition, 23, 149-178.Cheng, K. (2008). Whither geometry? Troubles of the geometric module. Trends in cognitive sciences,12, 355-361.Collett, T. S., & Collett, M. (2002). Memory use in insect visual navigation. Nature reviews. Neuroscience,3, 542.Gray, E. R., Bloomfield, L. L., Ferrey, A., Spetch, M. L., & Sturdy, C. B. (2005). Spatial encoding in mountain chickadees:Features overshadow geometry. Biology Letters,1, 314-317.Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. (1994). A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children. Nature, 370, 57-59.Hermer, L., & Spelke, E. (1996). Modularity and development:A case of spatial reorientation. Cognition, 61, 195-232.Huttenlocher, J., & Vasilyeva, M. (2003). How toddlers represent enclosed spaces. Cognitive Science, 27, 749-766.Huttenlocher, J., Lourenco, S. F., & Vasilyeva, M. (2006). Perspectives on spatial development. In L. B. Smith, M. Gasser, & K. Mix (Eds.). The spatial foundations of cognition and language. Oxford University Press, New York.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.Lee, S. A., & Spelke, E. S. (2010). A modular geometric mechanism for reorientation in children. Cognitive psychology,61, 152-176.Lourenco, S. F., & Huttenlocher, J. (2007). Using geometry to specify location:Implications for spatial coding in children and nonhuman animals. Psychological Research,71, 252-264.Lourenco, S. F., Huttenlocher, J., & Vasilyeva, M. (2005). Toddlers' representations of space:The role of viewer perspective. Psychological Science, 16, 255-259.Nardini, M., Thomas, R. L., Knowland, V. C., Braddick, O. J., & Atkinson, J. (2009). A viewpoint-independent process for spatial reorientation. Cognition, 112, 241-248.Nazareth, A., Weisberg, S. M., Margulis, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2018). Charting the development of cognitive mapping. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 170, 86-106.Nori, R., & Giusberti, F. (2006). Predicting cognitive styles from spatial abilities. The American journal of psychology,119, 67-86.Nori, R., Grandicelli, S., & Giusberti, F. (2006). Alignment effect:Primary-secondary learning and cognitive styles. Perception-London, 35, 1233-1249.Pearce, J. M., Graham, M., Good, M. A., Jones, P. M., & McGregor, A. (2006). Potentiation, overshadowing, and blocking of spatial learning based on the shape of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 201-214.Sheynikhovich, D., Chavarriaga, R., Strösslin, T., Arleo, A., & Gerstner, W. (2009). Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? Insights from a rodent navigation model. Psychological review,116, 540.Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior,10, 9-55.Weisberg, S. M., & Newcombe, N. S. (2016). How do (some) people make a cognitive map? Routes, places, and working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition,42, 768.
[1] CHEN Lijun, LIU Limin, LIN Yueyang, ZHANG Lingyan. Research on Cognitive Load of Graphic Processing in Virtual Reality Learning Environment [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(5): 619-627.
[2] PENG Huamao. The Chinese Researches in Psychology of Aging in the 21th Century:Current Status and Future [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2017, 33(4): 496-503.
[3] LI Fu-hong, CAO Bi-hua, XIE Chao-xiang, SUN Hong-jin, LI Hong. The role of landmark in Children’s Reorientation Behavior [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2011, 27(4): 344-350.
[4] GUO Shu-bin, MO Lei. A Concept of Processing Capacity: Based on The Complexity of Concepts [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2002, 18(2): 92-96.
[5] LIU Ming, DENG Ci-ping, SANG Biao. A Study on The Developmental Relationship Between Young Children’s Theory-of-mind and Their Social Behavior [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2002, 18(2): 39-43.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!