Search for: All records

Spatial cognition is central to human behavior, but the way we conceptualize space varies over development and across cultures. When remembering the locations or movements of nearby objects, educated adults predominantly rely on a body-based spatial reference frame (e.g. to the left), whereas other groups prefer environment-based frames (e.g. toward the road), at least in some contexts. We propose that this varia- tion in spatial thinking partly reflects differences in the abil- ity to reliably discriminate left-right space, an ability that is common only among educated adults. To evaluate this pro- posal, here we tested US children’s spontaneous use of spatial reference frames on two axes. On the front-back axis, where spatial discrimination was relatively high, participants remem- bered object locations and movement directions using a body- based reference frame. On the left-right axis, where their spa- tial discrimination was significantly worse, the same partici- pants preferred environment-based reference frames. This re- versal reveals remarkable flexibility in children’s spontaneous use of spatial reference frames, extends findings in indigenous adults, and clarifies the likely mechanisms underlying spatial cognitive diversity. 

Spatial cognition is central to human behavior, but the way people conceptualize space varies within and across groups for unknown reasons. Here, we found that adults from an indigenous Bolivian group used systematically different spatial reference frames on different axes, according to known differences in their discriminability: In both verbal and nonverbal tests, participants preferred allocentric (i.e., environment-based) space on the left-right axis, where spatial discriminations (like “b” versus “d”) are notoriously difficult, but the same participants preferred egocentric (i.e., body-based) space on the front-back axis, where spatial discrimination is relatively easy. The results (i) establish a relationship between spontaneous spatial language and memory across axes within a single culture, (ii) challenge the claim that each language group has a predominant spatial reference frame at a given scale, and (iii) suggest that spatial thinking and language may both be shaped by spatial discrimination abilities, as they vary across cultures and contexts. 

The physical properties of space may be universal, but the way people conceptualize space is not. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the loca- tions of objects, while in other groups, people encode the same spatial scene using allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver). These different spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) character- ize the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. Al- though spatial language and spatial thinking tend to covary, the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that this variation in FoR use reflects the spatial discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal in a group of indigenous Bolivians, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminabil- ity. In two non-verbal tests, participants spontaneously used different FoRs on different spatial axes: On the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their behavior was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, their behavior was predominantly egocentric. These findings support the spatial discriminability hypothesis, which may ex- plain variation in spatial concepts not only across axes, but also across groups, between individuals, and over development. 

Spatial language and cognition vary across contexts. In some groups, people tend to use egocentric space (e.g. left, right) to encode the locations of objects, while in other groups, people use allocentric space (e.g. upriver, downriver) to describe the same spatial scene. These different spatial Frames of Reference (FoRs) characterize both the way people talk about spatial relations and the way they think about them, even when they are not using language. These patterns of spatial language and spatial thinking tend to covary, but the root causes of this variation are unclear. Here we propose that this variation in FoR use reflects variation in the spatial discriminability of the relevant spatial continua. In an initial test of this proposal, we compared FoR use across spatial axes that are known to differ in discriminability. In two non-verbal tests, a group of indigenous Bolivians used different FoRs on different spatial axes; on the lateral axis, where egocentric (left-right) discrimination is difficult, their behavior was predominantly allocentric; on the sagittal axis, where egocentric (front-back) discrimination is relatively easy, their behavior was predominantly egocentric. These findings support the spatial discriminability hypothesis, which may explain variation in spatial concepts not only across axes, but also across groups, between individuals, and over development.