scholarly journals The thickness of the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) predicts the self-prioritization effect (SPE) on the interaction between spatial reference frames and spatial domains

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Huang ◽  
Xiaoyu Tang ◽  
Aijun Wang ◽  
Ming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
The Self ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
Near Space ◽  
Ventral Medial Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Space Processing ◽  
Spatial Domains ◽  
Egocentric Representation

Abstract Neuropsychological studies have demonstrated that the preferential processing of near-space and egocentric representation is associated with the self-prioritization effect (SPE). However, relatively little is known concerning whether the SPE is superior to the representation of egocentric frames or near-space processing in the interaction between spatial reference frames and spatial domains. The present study adopted the variant of the shape-label matching task (i.e., color-label) to establish an SPE, combined with a spatial reference frame judgment task, to examine how the SPE leads to preferential processing of near-space or egocentric representations. Surface-based morphometry analysis was also adopted to extract the cortical thickness of the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) to examine whether it could predict differences in the SPE at the behavioral level. The results showed a significant SPE, manifested as the response of self-associated color being faster than that of stranger-associated color. Additionally, the SPE showed a preference for near-space processing, followed by egocentric representation. More importantly, the thickness of the vmPFC could predict the difference in the SPE on reference frames, particularly in the left frontal pole cortex and bilateral rostral anterior cingulate cortex. These findings indicated that the SPE showed a prior entry effect for information at the spatial level relative to the reference frame level, providing evidence to support the structural significance of the self-processing region. The present study also further clarified the priority in SPE processing and role of the SPE within the real spatial domain.

Neural Interaction between Spatial Domain and Spatial Reference Frame in Parietal–Occipital Junction

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 2223-2236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Chen ◽  
Ralph Weidner ◽  
Peter H. Weiss ◽  
John C. Marshall ◽  
Gereon R. Fink
Keyword(s):  
Visual Processing ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Visuospatial Neglect ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
Neural Interaction ◽  
Near Space ◽  
Space Processing ◽  
Spatial Domains

On the basis of double dissociations in clinical symptoms of patients with unilateral visuospatial neglect, neuropsychological research distinguishes between different spatial domains (near vs. far) and different spatial reference frames (egocentric vs. allocentric). In this fMRI study, we investigated the neural interaction between spatial domains and spatial reference frames by constructing a virtual three-dimensional world and asking participants to perform either allocentric or egocentric judgments on an object located in either near or far space. Our results suggest that the parietal–occipital junction (POJ) not only shows a preference for near-space processing but is also involved in the neural interaction between spatial domains and spatial reference frames. Two dissociable streams of visual processing exist in the human brain: a ventral perception-related stream and a dorsal action-related stream. Consistent with the perception–action model, both far-space processing and allocentric judgments draw upon the ventral stream whereas both near-space processing and egocentric judgments draw upon the dorsal stream. POJ showed higher neural activity during allocentric judgments (ventral) in near space (dorsal) and egocentric judgments (dorsal) in far space (ventral) as compared with egocentric judgments (dorsal) in near space (dorsal) and allocentric judgments (ventral) in far space (ventral). Because representations in the dorsal and ventral streams need to interact during allocentric judgments (ventral) in near space (dorsal) and egocentric judgments (dorsal) in far space (ventral), our results imply that POJ is involved in the neural interaction between the two streams. Further evidence for the suggested role of POJ as a neural interface between the dorsal and ventral streams is provided by functional connectivity analysis.

scholarly journals Reference frames in spatial communication for navigation and sports: an empirical study in ultimate frisbee players

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. Weisberg ◽  
Anjan Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frame ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The North ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Spatial Communication ◽  
Spatial Domains ◽  
Ultimate Frisbee

Abstract Background Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a Relative reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (Absolute reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using Absolute or Relative reference frames (“go north” vs “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use Relative reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference: one based on navigating a four-way intersection; and the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either Relative or Absolute reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

scholarly journals Reference frames in spatial communication for navigation and sports: An empirical study in ultimate frisbee players

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Marc Weisberg ◽  
Anjan Chatterjee
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frame ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Information ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The North ◽  
Communication Task ◽  
Spatial Communication ◽  
Spatial Domains ◽  
Ultimate Frisbee

Background: Reference frames ground spatial communication by mapping ambiguous language (for example, navigation: “to the left”) to properties of the speaker (using a body-based reference frame: “to my left”) or the world (environment-based reference frame: “to the north”). People’s preferences for reference frame vary depending on factors like their culture, the specific task in which they are engaged, and differences among individuals. Although most people are proficient with both reference frames, it is unknown whether preference for reference frames is stable within people or varies based on the specific spatial domain. These alternatives are difficult to adjudicate because navigation is one of few spatial domains that can be naturally solved using multiple reference frames. That is, while spatial navigation directions can be specified using environment-based or body-based reference frames (“go north” vs. “go left”), other spatial domains predominantly use body-based reference frames. Here, we used two domains to test the stability of reference frame preference – one based on navigating a four-way intersection, the other based on the sport of ultimate frisbee. We recruited 58 ultimate frisbee players to complete an online experiment. We measured reaction time and accuracy while participants solved spatial problems in each domain using verbal prompts containing either body- or environment-based reference frames. Details of the task in both domains were kept as similar as possible while remaining ecologically plausible so that reference frame preference could emerge. Results: We pre-registered a prediction that participants would be faster using their preferred reference frame type, and that this advantage would correlate across domains; we did not find such a correlation. Instead, the data reveal that people use distinct reference frames in each domain. Conclusion: This experiment reveals that spatial reference frame types are not stable and may be differentially suited to specific domains. This finding has broad implications for communicating spatial information by offering an important consideration for how spatial reference frames are used in communication: task constraints may affect reference frame choice as much as individual factors or culture.

scholarly journals Testing the spatial reference frames used for manual interception

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1063-1063
Author(s):  
J. C. Dessing ◽  
J. D. Crawford ◽  
W. P. Medendorp
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frames ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames

Space Representation in Children

2018 ◽  
pp. 13-22
Keyword(s):  
Object Representation ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Space Representation ◽  
Spatial Transformations ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Spatial Reference ◽  
Spatial Reference Frames ◽  
The Central Nervous System ◽  
The Individual

With “Spatial Reference Frames” we refer to systems of coordinates by which the central nervous system encodes the relative positions of objects in space, including that of the body itself. A reference system is a way of representing the positions of the subjects / objects in space. The spatial position of an object can be represented in the brain with respect to different classes of reference points, which may be related or not to the position of the subject. In a nutshell, we can say that there are two types of transformations of space imagery: the allocentric spatial transformations, that involve a system of representation from object to object and encode information about the location of an object or its parts in relation to other objects, and egocentric spatial transformations that involve a system of subject-object representation. The human being switches from one code to another, depending on the contingent requirements, giving preference to one or another system according to a set of heterogeneous factors. The gender difference (male / female), for example, plays a key role. Even the individual cognitive strategies make use of different representations in a significantly different way. Manipulation of spatial reference systems constitute a “transnosographic trait” in various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Each of these diseases (autism, schizophrenia, epilepsy, spatial anxiety, Parkinson) reaches some of the structures involved in the manipulation of referential of different spaces. The chapter illustrates Piaget's study on the representation of space in the child and the use of different spatial coding systems, and provides a brief overview of the scientific debate following the Piagetian position.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document