Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: geometry is more important than gravity

Previous studies found that it is easier for observers to spatially update displays during imagined self-rotation versus array rotation. The present study examined whether either the physics of gravity or the geometric relationship between the viewer and array guided this self-rotation advantage. Experiments 1-3 preserved a real or imagined orthogonal relationship between the viewer and the array, requiring a rotation in the observer's transverse plane. Despite imagined self-rotations that defied gravity, a viewer advantage remained. Without this orthogonal relationship (Experiment 4), the viewer advantage was lost. We suggest that efficient transformation of the egocentric reference frame relies on the representation of body-environment relations that allow rotation around the observer's principal axis. This efficiency persists across different and conflicting physical and imagined postures.

[1]  Clark C. Presson.  Strategies in Spatial Reasoning. , 1982 .

[2]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  L. Parsons.  Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  J. Freyd,et al.  Apparent Motion of the Human Body , 1990 .

[5]  L. Parsons,et al.  Use of implicit motor imagery for visual shape discrimination as revealed by PET , 1995, Nature.

[6]  C C Presson,et al.  Spatial egocentrism and the effect of an alternate frame of reference. , 1980, Journal of experimental child psychology.

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

[8]  L M Parsons,et al.  Imagined spatial transformation of one's body. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  L. Parsons.  Inability to Reason About an Object's Orientation Using an Axis and Angle of Rotation , 1995 .

[10]  N. Stucchi,et al.  Viewer- and object-centered mental explorations of an imagined environment are not equivalent. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[11]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Images and Their Transformations , 1982 .

[12]  Clark C. Presson,et al.  The coding and transformation of spatial information , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  L. Parsons.  Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural Adaptation of Imaginary Visual Motion , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Mental rotation of objects versus hands: neural mechanisms revealed by positron emission tomography. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[17]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[18]  M Massironi,et al.  Organizational versus Geometric Factors in Mental Rotation and Folding Tasks , 1989, Perception.

[19]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Motor processes in mental rotation , 1998, Cognition.

[20]  J. Pani.  Limits on the Comprehension of Rotational Motion: Mental Imagery of Rotations with Oblique Components , 1993, Perception.

[21]  Mark S. Cohen,et al.  Changes in cortical activity during mental rotation. A mapping study using functional MRI. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[22]  I. Rock,et al.  Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints? , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Memory and cognition , 1977 .

[24]  J R Pani,et al.  Spatial Reference Systems in the Comprehension of Rotational Motion , 1994, Perception.

[25]  R. Shepard.  Ecological constraints on internal representation: resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. , 1984, Psychological review.

[26]  P. Viviani,et al.  Frames of reference and control parameters in visuomanual pointing. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[28]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[29]  R. Shepard,et al.  Comparison of cube rotations around axes inclined relative to the environment or to the cube. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Martin J. Farrell,et al.  Mental Rotation and the Automatic Updating of Body-Centered Spatial Relationships , 1998 .

[31]  C. de’Sperati,et al.  Recognizing the motion of a graspable object is guided by handedness , 1997, Neuroreport.

[32]  Ranxiao Frances Wang,et al.  Perceiving Real-World Viewpoint Changes , 1998 .

[33]  A. Wohlschläger,et al.  Mental and manual rotation. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.