Perspective taking in referring to objects behind versus in front of an observer: Frames of reference, intraindividual consistency, and response latencies
Perspective taking in referring to objects behind versus in front of an observer: Frames of reference, intraindividual consistency, and response latencies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17470218.2015.1083593
复制
发表时间：
2016-07-02
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Bender, Andrea
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Beller, Sieghard;Bohlen, Judith;Bender, Andrea
说英语和德语的人通常采用相对参照系(For)的反映变体，以描述位于他们前面的非定向对象是如何相互联系的。然而，关于它们是如何在背部环境中进行的，人们知之甚少，物体位于它们的背部。在本文中，我们探讨了转弯假说，该假说假设观察者(心理上)180度转身面对物体，将背部位置转换为正面位置，从而可以应用首选的For变量来设置正面。为了引出空间参考，我们使用了一张照片，这些照片显示了一个观察者和两个物体在观察者的视野(正面条件)或观察者的背部(背部条件)。观察者的目光要么与参照者的方向相同(对齐的视角)，要么看向相反的方向(相对视角)。来自两个实验的数据表明，虽然参与者确实接受了观察者的观点，但他们在背部环境中的参照与转向假说不相容。对反应潜伏期的分析表明，与额部条件相比，在背部条件下为第一个项目建立Form的认知成本更高，但对后续项目的快速适应，以及在两种条件下选择的个体内部一致性较高。维持背侧环境中的参照应与正面环境中采用的相对参照的变体相一致的假设，参与者的参照可以通过假设没有观察者(心理)转弯而通过的向后投影来解释。
Speakers of English and German typically adopt the reflection variant of the relative frame of reference (FoR) in order to describe how nonoriented objects that are located in front of them are related to one another. Little is known, however, about how they proceed in dorsal settings, with objects located in their back. In this article, we explore the turn hypothesis, which assumes a (mental) 180 degrees turn of the observer to face the objects, converting the dorsal into a frontal situation, so that the preferred FoR variant for frontal settings can be applied. To elicit spatial references, we used photographs that showed an observer and two objects either in the observer's visual field (frontal condition) or in the observer's back (dorsal condition). The observer was looking either in the same direction as the referencing individual (aligned perspectives) or in the opposite direction (vis-a-vis perspective). Data from two experiments show that while participants do adopt the observer's perspective, their references in dorsal settings are incompatible with the turn hypothesis. Analyses of response latencies indicate additional cognitive costs for establishing a FoR for the very first item in the dorsal condition as compared to the frontal condition, but fast adaption for subsequent items, and high intraindividual consistency in FoR choice in both conditions. Maintaining the assumption that references in dorsal settings should be compatible with the variant of the relative FoR adopted in frontal settings, participants' references can be explained by assuming a backward projection that gets by without a (mental) turn of the observer.