Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33151358›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2020

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

Steven M Weisberg, Anjan Chatterjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Steven M WeisbergDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA. stevenweisberg@ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7003-6082
Anjan ChatterjeeDepartment of Neurology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

Figurative Language in Aphasic and Health ParticipantsR01DC012511 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CHATTERJEE, ANJAN K · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
Neural representations of spatial directions in language, schemas, and imagesF32DC015203 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WEISBERG, STEVEN M · 2015 to 2018
$171k
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC015203NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReference 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

AthletesCommunicationIndividualityAdultAthletic PerformanceChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceSpace PerceptionSpatial NavigationIndividual differencesNavigationReference framesSpatial cognitionSpatial languageSpatial perceptionSports

Identifiers

PMID33151358
PMCPMC7644680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.