Choosing Frames of Referenece: Perspective-Taking in a 2D and 3D Navigational Task

Abstract

This study investigates how frames of reference are chosen in a dynamic navigational task. Participants issued verbal instructions to an animated robot and were provided with one of three views for navigating the animated robot around a virtual world. The different views included a flat two-dimensional (2D) North-up map, a three-dimensional (3D) robot's eye view of the world, and a 3D view from behind the robot (3D-Camera) in which depth cues were manipulated. Our results show people adopt an egocentric frame of reference when depth cues are salient and an exocentric reference frame when depth cues are absent. The results suggest the absence or presence of depth cues is a critical component in choosing a reference frame. We discuss the extension of Bryant and Tversky's (1999) theoretical framework to a dynamic environment, such as navigation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bryant

D. J.

Tversky

(1999). Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagram and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 137–156.

Carlsen-Radvansky

L. A.

Logan

G. D.

(1997). The influence of reference frame selection on spatial template construction. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 411–437.

Carlsen-Radvansky

L. A.

Jiang

(1998). Inhibition accompanies reference-frame selection. Psychological Science, 9(5), 386–391.

Dale

Geldof

Prost

J. P.

(2003). Coral: Using natural language generation for NA Vigational assistance. In Oudshoorn

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC 2003) (Vol. 16, pp. 35–44). Adelaide, Australia.

Emmorey

Tversky

Taylor

H. A.

(2000). Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2, 157–180.

Fillmore

C. J.

(1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Levelt

W. J. M.

(1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In Doorn

A. J. v.

Gring

W. A. v. d.

Koenderink

J. J.

(Eds.), Limits in Perception (pp. 323–358). Utrecht: NVU Science Press.

Linde

Labov

(1975). Spatial networks as a site for the study of language and thought. Language, 51, 924–939.

Olmos

Wickens

C. D.

Chudy

(2000). Tactical displays for combat awareness: An examination of dimensionality and frame of reference concepts and the application of cognitive engineering. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10(3), 247–271.

10.

Schober

M. F.

(1993). Spatial perspective-taking conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.

11.

Taylor

H. A.

Tversky

(1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371–391.

12.

Wauchope

(1996). Multimodal interaction with a map-based simulation system (No. AIC-96-027). Washington, D.C.: Naval Research Laboratory.

13.

Wickens

C. D.

(1999). Frames of reference for navigation. In Gopher

Koriat

(Eds.), Attention and Performance (pp. 113–144). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.