ArticlePsychological research2026
How implicit social information shapes spatial memory of objects.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our environments, we encode surrounding spatial information using egocentric (subject-to-object) and allocentric (object-to-object) reference frames. Spatial encoding, however, occurs in an environment populated by more than just “objects” but also by people, and this social information can have a significant impact on our spatial memory. Here, we investigated how implicit social information influences spatial encoding by designing a study with an explicit spatial task and implicit social cues. Participants performed a task where they memorized triads of geometric objects and provided egocentric and allocentric judgments of relative distance. Each object was positioned in front of pairs of social (virtual humans) and non-social stimuli (lamps and chairs, as control conditions). These stimuli, irrelevant to the spatial task, could be at different proxemic distances (intimate, personal, and social), and with mutual and non-mutual gaze (Facing/Not-Facing), in the case of virtual humans and chairs. A questionnaire assessing empathic disposition was also administered. The overall pattern of results showed that the egocentric processing was facilitated over the allocentric one when the social cues were clear and allowed an easy social categorization. Notably, no such advantage emerged when social categorizations required further processing to understand social relations. The empathic disposition was also associated with the spatial performance. In conclusion, our findings demonstrate that even when irrelevant to a task, social information, defined by nonverbal signals (proxemics distance and gaze), implicitly affects the way we represent our surrounding environment. This highlights the intertwined nature of spatial cognition and social processes in everyday life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.