Mental representations of large and small spatial layouts are orientation dependent.

Previous research on spatial memory indicated that memories of small layouts were orientation dependent (orientation specific) but that memories of large layouts were orientation independent (orientation free). Two experiments investigated the relation between layout size and orientation dependency. Participants learned a small or a large 4-point path (Experiment 1) or a large display of objects (Experiment 2) and then made judgments of relative direction from imagined headings that were either the same as or different from the single studied orientation. Judgments were faster and more accurate when the imagined heading was the same as the studied orientation (i.e., aligned) than when the imagined heading differed from the studied orientation (i.e., misaligned). This alignment effect was present for both small and large layouts. These results indicate that location is encoded in an orientation-dependent manner regardless of layout size.

[1]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis. , 1979 .

[2]  L. Kozlowski,et al.  Sense of Direction, Spatial Orientation, and Cognitive Maps. , 1977 .

[3]  G W Evans,et al.  Cognitive mapping: knowledge of real-world distance and location information. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[4]  T. Gärling,et al.  Processing of information about location during locomotion: Effects of a concurrent task and locomotion patterns , 1980 .

[5]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory , 1980 .

[6]  D. L. Hintzman,et al.  Orientation in cognitive maps , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Irwin N. Jankovic,et al.  Principles of spatial problem solving. , 1982 .

[8]  Children's memory for spatial locations: the influence of recall perspective and type of environment. , 1982, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[9]  Marvin J. Levine,et al.  You-Are-Here Maps , 1982 .

[10]  M M Smyth,et al.  Orientation and spatial representation within multiple frames of reference. , 1982, British journal of psychology.

[11]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  Building spatial representations through primary and secondary learning. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  P. Jolicoeur The time to name disoriented natural objects , 1985, Memory & cognition.

[14]  M. Linn,et al.  Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. , 1985, Child development.

[15]  J. Rieser,et al.  Sensitivity to Perspective Structure While Walking without Vision , 1986, Perception.

[16]  N. Eisenberg Contemporary topics in developmental psychology , 1987 .

[17]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  Orientation-specificity in kinesthetic spatial learning: The role of multiple orientations , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[18]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[19]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  J. Rieser Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  D H Warren,et al.  The Importance of Alignment in Blind Subjects' Use of Tactual Maps , 1989, Perception.

[22]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  Orientation specificity in spatial memory: what makes a path different from a map of the path? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Misaligned Maps Lead to Predictable Errors , 1989, Perception.

[24]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Perception of Map-Environment Correspondence: The Roles of Features and Alignment , 1990 .

[25]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Searching Imagined Environments , 1990 .

[26]  E. Scholnick Changing Predictors of Map Use in Wayfinding. , 1990 .

[27]  B. Tversky,et al.  Searching imagined environments. , 1990 .

[28]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[29]  G. Humphrey,et al.  Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[30]  D H Warren,et al.  Finding Locations in the Environment: The Map as Mediator , 1992, Perception.

[31]  Lynn S. Liben,et al.  Understanding Person-Space-Map Relations: Cartographic and Developmental Perspectives. , 1993 .

[32]  James W. Pellegrino,et al.  Comparing the Tortoise and the Hare: Gender Differences and Experience in Dynamic Spatial Reasoning Tasks , 1993 .

[33]  M. J. Sharps,et al.  Gender and Task in the Determination of Spatial Cognitive Performance , 1993 .

[34]  P Péruch,et al.  Route knowledge in different spatial frames of reference. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[35]  David H. Warren,et al.  Map Alignment in Traveling Multisegment Routes , 1993 .

[36]  C C Presson,et al.  Updating after Rotational and Translational Body Movements: Coordinate Structure of Perspective Space , 1994, Perception.

[37]  Susan D. Voyer,et al.  Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[38]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  R. D. Easton,et al.  Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

[41]  T. McNamara,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence in Scene Recognition , 1997 .

[42]  T. McNamara,et al.  Multiple views of spatial memory , 1997 .

[43]  THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG CHILDREN ' S SPATIAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THEIR CLASSROOM , .