Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes. / Surtees, Andrew; Apperly, Ian; Samson, Dana.

In: Cognition, Vol. 129, No. 2, 11.2013, p. 426-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{3749cae4f66d4632bce084f3eadf7087,
title = "Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes",
abstract = "Processes for perspective-taking can be differentiated on whether or not they require us to mentally rotate ourselves into the position of the other person (Michelon & Zacks, 2006). Until now, only two perspective-taking tasks have been differentiated in this way, showing that judging whether something is to someone's left or right does require mental rotation, but judging if someone can see something or not does not. These tasks differ firstly on whether the content of the perspective is visual or spatial and secondly on whether the type of the judgement is early-developing (level-1 type) or later-developing (level-2 type). Across two experiments, we tested which of these factors was likely to be most important by using four different perspective-taking tasks which crossed orthogonally the content of judgement (visual vs. spatial) and the type of judgement (level-1 type vs. level-2 type). We found that the level-2 type judgements, of how something looks to someone else and whether it is to their left or right, required egocentric mental rotation. On the other hand, level-1 type judgements, of whether something was in front of or behind someone and of whether someone could see something or not, did not involve mental rotation. We suggest from this that the initial processing strategies employed for perspective-taking are largely independent of whether judgements are visual or spatial in nature. Furthermore, early developing abilities have features that make mental rotation unnecessary.",
keywords = "Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Rotation, Social Perception, Space Perception, Theory of Mind, Visual Perception, Young Adult",
author = "Andrew Surtees and Ian Apperly and Dana Samson",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.",
year = "2013",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008",
language = "English",
volume = "129",
pages = "426--38",
journal = "Cognition",
issn = "0010-0277",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes

AU - Surtees, Andrew

AU - Apperly, Ian

AU - Samson, Dana

N1 - Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PY - 2013/11

Y1 - 2013/11

N2 - Processes for perspective-taking can be differentiated on whether or not they require us to mentally rotate ourselves into the position of the other person (Michelon & Zacks, 2006). Until now, only two perspective-taking tasks have been differentiated in this way, showing that judging whether something is to someone's left or right does require mental rotation, but judging if someone can see something or not does not. These tasks differ firstly on whether the content of the perspective is visual or spatial and secondly on whether the type of the judgement is early-developing (level-1 type) or later-developing (level-2 type). Across two experiments, we tested which of these factors was likely to be most important by using four different perspective-taking tasks which crossed orthogonally the content of judgement (visual vs. spatial) and the type of judgement (level-1 type vs. level-2 type). We found that the level-2 type judgements, of how something looks to someone else and whether it is to their left or right, required egocentric mental rotation. On the other hand, level-1 type judgements, of whether something was in front of or behind someone and of whether someone could see something or not, did not involve mental rotation. We suggest from this that the initial processing strategies employed for perspective-taking are largely independent of whether judgements are visual or spatial in nature. Furthermore, early developing abilities have features that make mental rotation unnecessary.

AB - Processes for perspective-taking can be differentiated on whether or not they require us to mentally rotate ourselves into the position of the other person (Michelon & Zacks, 2006). Until now, only two perspective-taking tasks have been differentiated in this way, showing that judging whether something is to someone's left or right does require mental rotation, but judging if someone can see something or not does not. These tasks differ firstly on whether the content of the perspective is visual or spatial and secondly on whether the type of the judgement is early-developing (level-1 type) or later-developing (level-2 type). Across two experiments, we tested which of these factors was likely to be most important by using four different perspective-taking tasks which crossed orthogonally the content of judgement (visual vs. spatial) and the type of judgement (level-1 type vs. level-2 type). We found that the level-2 type judgements, of how something looks to someone else and whether it is to their left or right, required egocentric mental rotation. On the other hand, level-1 type judgements, of whether something was in front of or behind someone and of whether someone could see something or not, did not involve mental rotation. We suggest from this that the initial processing strategies employed for perspective-taking are largely independent of whether judgements are visual or spatial in nature. Furthermore, early developing abilities have features that make mental rotation unnecessary.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Imagination

KW - Male

KW - Rotation

KW - Social Perception

KW - Space Perception

KW - Theory of Mind

KW - Visual Perception

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008

DO - 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 23999408

VL - 129

SP - 426

EP - 438

JO - Cognition

JF - Cognition

SN - 0010-0277

IS - 2

ER -