Journal article Open Access
We examined whether spatial representations for scenes experienced on the screens of mobile devices are orientation dependent
and whether the type of movement (physical vs. simulated) during learning affects the encoding and the retrieval of
spatial information. Participants studied a spatial layout depicted on a tablet and then carried out perspective-taking trials
in which they localized objects from imagined perspectives. Depending on condition, participants either rotated the tablet
along with their body or remained stationary and swiped with their finger on the screen to change their viewpoint within
the scene. Results showed that participants were faster and more accurate to point to objects from an imagined perspective
that was aligned than misaligned to their initial physical orientation during learning, suggesting that they had formed an
orientation-dependent representation. Although no differences were found between movement conditions during pointing,
participants were faster to encode spatial information with physical than simulated movement.
Avraamides, M. N., & Kelly, J. W. (2005). Imagined perspectivechanging within and across novel environments. In Spatial cognition 2004-lecture notes in artificial intelligence (pp. 245– 258). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer. https ://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-540-32255 -9_15.
Avraamides, M. N., & Kelly, J. W. (2008). Multiple systems of spatial memory and action. Cognitive Processing, 9, 93–106. https ://doi. org/10.1007/s1033 9-007-0188-5.
Hatzipanayioti, A., Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2015). The Protagonist's first perspective influences the encoding of spatial information in narratives. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 505–520. https ://doi.org/10.1080/17470 218.2015.10561 94.
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, 1092–1107. https ://doi. org/10.1037/0278-7318.104.22.1682.
Loomis, J. M., Lippa, Y., Klatzky, R. L., & Golledge, R. G. (2002). Spatial updating of locations specified by 3-d sound and spatial language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 335–345. https ://doi.org/10.1037/e5018 82009 -156.
McNamara, T. P. (2003). 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 reasoning, LNAI 2685 (pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer. https ://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45004 -1_11.
Mou, W., Biocca, F., Owen, C. B., Tang, A., Xiao, F., & Lim, L. (2004). Frames of reference in mobile augmented reality displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10(4), 238–244. https ://doi. org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.4.238.
Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30, 142–157. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7322.214.171.124.
Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447–1455. https ://doi.org/10.1068/ p2314 47.
Rideout, V., & Saphir, M. (2013). Zero to eight: Children's media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media.
Rieser, J. J. (1989). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1157–1165. https ://doi. org/10.1037//0278-73126.96.36.1997.
Rieser, J. J., Guth, D. A., & Hill, E. W. (1986). Sensitivity to perspective structure while walking without vision. Perception, 15, 173–188. https ://doi.org/10.1068/p1501 73.
Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (1997). Multiple views of spatial memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 102–106. https ://doi. org/10.3758/bf032 10780 .