4.5 Article

Taking someone else's spatial perspective: Natural stance or effortful decentring?

Journal

COGNITION
Volume 148, Issue -, Pages 27-33

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.006

Keywords

Perspective taking; Sense of self; Tactile perception; Visuo-spatial abilities; Individual differences

Funding

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-11-JSH2-003-1]
  2. Mission pour l'Interdisciplinarite (Defisens, Supple-Sens grant)
  3. Fondation des Aveugles de Guerre
  4. AHRC [AH/L007053/1]
  5. [ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC]
  6. [ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL]
  7. Arts and Humanities Research Council [AH/L007053/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. AHRC [AH/L007053/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

When perceiving stimuli, self-centred and decentred perspectives can be adopted. In the present study, we investigate whether perceivers have a natural perspective that constrains their spatial perception, with some people perceiving better with self-centred than decentred perspectives and vice versa for other people. We used a recognition task of tactile ambiguous letters (b, d, p, and q) presented on the stomach, for which three perspectives can be adopted (trunk-centred, head-centred, and decentred). At first, the participants were free to adopt any perspective they wanted. Then, either the same or a different perspective was imposed on them. Without constraints, 80% of the participants adopted a self-centred perspective (50% trunk-centred, 30% head-centred) and 20% a decentred one. The perspective adopted freely appears to be natural as recognition performance decreases with a different perspective and returns to its previous high level with the same perspective. Thus, to perceive space, some perceivers adopt naturally a perspective centred on themselves whereas others take naturally others' perspective. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available