What is the format of spatial representation? In mathematics, we often conceive of two primary ways of representing 2D space, Cartesian coordinates, which capture horizontal and vertical relations, and polar coordinates, which capture angle and distance relations. Do either of these two coordinate systems play a representational role in the human mind? Six experiments, using a simple visual-matching paradigm, show that (a) representational format is recoverable from the errors that observers make in simple spatial tasks, (b) human-made errors spontaneously favor a polar coordinate system of representation, and (c) observers are capable of using other coordinate systems when acting in highly structured spaces (e.g., grids). We discuss these findings in relation to classic work on dimension independence as well as work on spatial representation at other spatial scales.
AlgomD.FitousiD. (2016). Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability–integrality distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1352–1383.
2.
AppelleS. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: The “oblique effect” in man and animals. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 266–278.
3.
BaysP. M.WuE. Y.HusainM. (2011). Storage and binding of object features in visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1622–1631.
4.
CorenS.GirgusJ. S. (1978). Seeing is deceiving: The psychology of visual illusions. Erlbaum.
5.
DehaeneS.BossiniS.GirauxP. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
6.
EricsonJ. D.WarrenW. H. (2020). Probing the invariant structure of spatial knowledge: Support for the cognitive graph hypothesis. Cognition, 200, Article 104276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104276
7.
FarahM. J.BrunnJ. L.WongA. B.WallaceM. A.CarpenterP. A. (1990). Frames of reference for allocating attention to space: Evidence from the neglect syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 28, 335–347.
8.
FirestoneC.KeilF. C. (2016). Seeing the tipping point: Balance perception and visual shape. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 872–881.
9.
GallistelC. R. (1990). The organization of learning. MIT Press.
10.
GarnerW. R.FelfoldyG. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.
11.
HubbardT. L. (Ed.). (2018). Spatial biases in perception and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
12.
HuttenlocherJ.HedgesL. V.DuncanS. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.
13.
KuipersB.TecuciD. G.StankiewiczB. J. (2003). The skeleton in the cognitive map: A computational and empirical exploration. Environment and Behavior, 35, 81–106.
14.
LangloisT.JacobyN.SuchowJ. W.GriffithsT. L. (2017). Uncovering visual priors in spatial memory using serial reproduction. In GunzelmannG.HowesA.TenbrinkT.DavelaarE. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 712–717). Cognitive Science Society.
15.
LiB.PetersonM. R.FreemanR. D. (2003). Oblique effect: A neural basis in the visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 204–217.
16.
McCloskeyM.PalmerE. (1996). Visual representation of object location: Insights from localization impairments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 25–28.
17.
McCloskeyM.RappB.YantisS.RubinG.BaconW. F.DagnelieG.GordonB.AliminosaD.BoatmanD. F.BadeckerW.JohnsonD. N.TusaR. J.PalmerE. (1995). A developmental deficit in localizing objects from vision. Psychological Science, 6, 112–117.
18.
MoserE. I.KropffE.MoserM. B. (2008). Place cells, grid cells, and the brain’s spatial representation system. Annual Reviews Neuroscience, 31, 69–89.
19.
MoserE. I.RoudiY.WitterM. P.KentrosC.BonhoefferT.MoserM. B. (2014). Grid cells and cortical representation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 466–481.
20.
MüllerM.WehnerR. (1988). Path integration in desert ants, Cataglyphis fortis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 85, 5287–5290.
21.
O’KeefeJ.NadelL. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Clarendon Press.
22.
OlsonD. R. (2013). Cognitive development: The child’s acquisition of diagonality. Psychology Press.
23.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B.SammartinoJ. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107.
24.
ParkinsonC.WheatleyT. (2013). Old cortex, new contexts: Re-purposing spatial perception for social cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 645. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00645
25.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 195–203.
26.
PertzovY.HusainM. (2014). The privileged role of location in visual working memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 1914–1924.
27.
WarrenW. H.RothmanD. B.SchnappB. H.EricsonJ. D. (2017). Wormholes in virtual space: From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. Cognition, 166, 152–163.
28.
WedellD. H.FittingS.AllenG. L. (2007). Shape effects on memory for location. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 681–686.
29.
YangF.FlombaumJ. (2018). Polar coordinates as the format of spatial representation in visual perception. Journal of Vision, 18(10), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1167/18.10.21
30.
YousifS. R.ChenY. C.SchollB. J. (2020). Systematic angular biases in the representation of visual space. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 82, 3124–3143.
31.
YousifS. R.KeilF. C. (2019). The additive-area heuristic: An efficient but illusory means of visual area approximation. Psychological Science, 30, 495–503.
32.
YousifS. R.LourencoS. F. (2017). Are all geometric cues created equal? Children’s use of distance and length for reorientation. Cognitive Development, 43, 159–169.
33.
ZorziM.PriftisK.UmiltàC. (2002). Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line. Nature, 417, 138–139.
