Search

Most studies on spatial memory refer to the horizontal plane, leaving an open question as to whether findings generalize to vertical spaces where gravity and the visual upright of our surrounding space are salient orientation cues. In three experiments, we examined which reference frame is used to organize memory for vertical locations: the one based on the body vertical, the visual-room vertical, or the direction of gravity. Participants judged interobject spatial relationships learned from a vertical layout in a virtual room. During learning and testing, we varied the orientation of the participant's body (upright vs. lying sideways) and the visually presented room relative to gravity (e.g., rotated by 90° along the frontal plane). Across all experiments, participants made quicker or more accurate judgments when the room was oriented in the same way as during learning with respect to their body, irrespective of their orientations relative to gravity. This suggests that participants employed an egocentric body-based reference frame for representing vertical object locations. Our study also revealed an effect of body-gravity alignment during testing. Participants recalled spatial relations more accurately when upright, regardless of the body and visual-room orientation during learning. This finding is consistent with a hypothesis of selection conflict between different reference frames. Overall, our results suggest that a body-based reference frame is preferred over salient allocentric reference frames in memory for vertical locations perceived from a single view. Further, memory of vertical space seems to be tuned to work best in the default upright body orientation.

Objects learned within single enclosed spaces (e.g., rooms) can be represented within a single reference frame. Contrarily, the representation of navigable spaces (multiple interconnected enclosed spaces) is less well understood. In this study we examined different levels of integration within memory (local, regional, global), when learning object locations in navigable space. Participants consecutively learned two distinctive regions of a virtual environment that eventually converged at a common transition point and subsequently solved a pointing task. In Experiment 1 pointing latency increased with increasing corridor distance to the target and additionally when pointing into the other region. Further, when pointing within a region alignment with local and regional reference frames, when pointing across regional boundaries alignment with a global reference frame was found to accelerate pointing. Thus, participants memorized local corridors, clustered corridors into regions, and integrated globally across the entire environment. Introducing the transition point at the beginning of learning each region in Experiment 2 caused previous region effects to vanish. Our findings emphasize the importance of locally confined spaces for structuring spatial memory and suggest that the opportunity to integrate novel into existing spatial information early during learning may influence unit formation on the regional level. Further, global representations seem to be consulted only when accessing spatial information beyond regional borders. Our results are inconsistent with conceptions of spatial memory for large scale environments based either exclusively on local reference frames or upon a single reference frame encompassing the whole environment, but rather support hierarchical representation of space.

Faces are processed holistically, so selective attention to 1 face part without any influence of the others often fails. In this study, 3 experiments investigated what type of facial information (shape or surface) underlies holistic face processing and whether generalization of holistic processing to nonexperienced faces requires extensive discrimination experience. Results show that facial shape information alone is sufficient to elicit the composite face effect (CFE), 1 of the most convincing demonstrations of holistic processing, whereas facial surface information is unnecessary (Experiment 1). The CFE is eliminated when faces differ only in surface but not shape information, suggesting that variation of facial shape information is necessary to observe holistic face processing (Experiment 2). Removing 3-dimensional (3D) facial shape information also eliminates the CFE, indicating the necessity of 3D shape information for holistic face processing (Experiment 3). Moreover, participants show similar holistic processing for faces with and without extensive discrimination experience (i.e., own- and other-race faces), suggesting that generalization of holistic processing to nonexperienced faces requires facial shape information, but does not necessarily require further individuation experience. These results provide compelling evidence that facial shape information underlies holistic face processing. This shape-based account not only offers a consistent explanation for previous studies of holistic face processing, but also suggests a new ground--in addition to expertise--for the generalization of holistic processing to different types of faces and to nonface objects.