Egocentric and Allocentric Reference Frames Can Flexibly Support Contextual Cueing.
allocentric
contextual cueing
egocentric
reference frame
visual attention
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
26
05
2021
accepted:
07
07
2021
entrez:
20
8
2021
pubmed:
21
8
2021
medline:
21
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We investigated if contextual cueing can be guided by egocentric and allocentric reference frames. Combinations of search configurations and external frame orientations were learned during a training phase. In Experiment 1, either the frame orientation or the configuration was rotated, thereby disrupting either the allocentric or egocentric and allocentric predictions of the target location. Contextual cueing survived both of these manipulations, suggesting that it can overcome interference from both reference frames. In contrast, when changed orientations of the external frame became valid predictors of the target location in Experiment 2, we observed contextual cueing as long as one reference frame was predictive of the target location, but contextual cueing was eliminated when both reference frames were invalid. Thus, search guidance in repeated contexts can be supported by both egocentric and allocentric reference frames as long as they contain valid information about the search goal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34413816
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711890
pmc: PMC8369006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
711890Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Zheng, Dobroschke and Pollmann.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Percept Psychophys. 2004 Apr;66(3):454-63
pubmed: 15283070
Front Psychol. 2018 Mar 27;9:402
pubmed: 29636716
F1000Res. 2018 Feb 9;7:168
pubmed: 29568496
Vision Res. 2012 Nov 15;73:23-9
pubmed: 23022549
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Aug;75(6):1103-17
pubmed: 23636949
J Vis. 2013 May 28;13(6):13
pubmed: 23716120
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Jul;32(4):867-82
pubmed: 16822154
J Vis. 2013 Nov 08;13(13):9
pubmed: 24213597
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Nov;81(8):2590-2596
pubmed: 31591700
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Apr;44(4):566-577
pubmed: 29035073
Neuropsychologia. 2009 May;47(6):1585-91
pubmed: 19084545
Cogn Psychol. 2006 Mar;52(2):93-129
pubmed: 16375882
Percept Psychophys. 2003 Jan;65(1):72-80
pubmed: 12699310
Percept Psychophys. 2005 Oct;67(7):1252-68
pubmed: 16502846
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004 Jan;30(1):142-57
pubmed: 14736303
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
pubmed: 19293088
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Aug;33(4):798-815
pubmed: 17683229
Cognition. 2000 Dec 15;77(3):215-50
pubmed: 11018510
Neuroimage. 2013 Feb 15;67:363-74
pubmed: 23201492
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Aug;204(4):585-94
pubmed: 20574687
Cogn Psychol. 1998 Jun;36(1):28-71
pubmed: 9679076
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Nov;81(8):2571-2589
pubmed: 31410759
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 May;4(5):170-178
pubmed: 10782102
Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 Nov;54(4):1105-24
pubmed: 11765735
Cogn Process. 2008 May;9(2):93-106
pubmed: 17899235
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Sep;19(9):524-33
pubmed: 26255970