How are bodies special? Effects of body features on spatial reasoning

References

• Amorim, M.-A., Isableu, B., & Jarraya, M. (2006). Embodied spatial transformations: “Body analogy” for the mental rotation of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 327–347. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.327
   Google Scholar
• Brandman, T., & Yovel, G. (2010). The body inversion effect is mediated by face-selective, not body-selective, mechanisms. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 10534–10540. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0911-10.2010
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S., & Diamond, R. (1994). Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children? Visual Cognition, 1, 253–274. doi: 10.1080/13506289408402302
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, L. A., & Podgorny, P. (1976). Mental transformations and visual comparison processes: Effects of complexity and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 503–514.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). The time required to prepare for a rotated stimulus. Memory & Cognition, 1(3), 246–250. doi: 10.3758/BF03198104
   Google Scholar
• Crouzet, S. M., Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2010). Fast saccades toward faces: Face detection in just 100 ms. Journal of Vision, 10, 1–17. doi:10.1167/10.4.16
   Google Scholar
• Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science, 293, 2470–2473. doi:10.1126/science.1063414
   Google Scholar
• Drewes, J., Trommershäuser, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2011). Parallel visual search and rapid animal detection in natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 11, 1–21. doi:10.1167/11.2.20
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, E., & McCloskey, M. (2010). Mirror-image confusions: Implications for representation and processing of object orientation. Cognition, 116(1), 110–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.04.005
   Google Scholar
• Huttenlocher, J., & Presson, C. C. (1973). Mental rotation and the perspective problem. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 277–299. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90015-7
   Google Scholar
• Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 213. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213
   Google Scholar
• Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2006). Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements: Visual processing speed revisited. Vision Research, 46, 1762–1776. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.10.002
   Google Scholar
• May, M., & Wendt, M. (2012). Separating mental transformations and spatial compatibility effects in the own body transformation task. Cognitive Processing, 13, 257–260. doi:10.1007/s10339-012-0455-y
   Google Scholar
• McCloskey, M. (2001). Spatial representation in mind and brain. In B. Rapp (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind (vol. 4, pp. 101–132). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception and Psychophysics, 68, 327–337. doi: 10.3758/BF03193680
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformation of one's body. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 172–191. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.116.2.172
   Google Scholar
• Presson, C. C., & Montello, D. R. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23, 1447–1455. doi: 10.1068/p231447
   Google Scholar
• Reed, C. L., Nyberg, A. A., & Grubb, J. D. (2012). Contributions of visual and embodied expertise to body perception. Perception, 41, 436–446. doi:10.1068/p7029
   Google Scholar
• Reed, C. L., Stone, V. E., Bozova, S., & Tanaka, J. (2003). The body-inversion effect. Psychological Science, 14, 302–308. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.14431
   Google Scholar
• Robbins, R. A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). The effects of inversion and familiarity on face versus body cues to person recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1098–1104.
   Google Scholar
• Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sayeki, Y. (1997). “Body analogy” and the cognition of rotated figures. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 90–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3972.701
   Google Scholar
• Takano, Y. (1989). Perception of rotated forms: A theory of information types. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–59. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(89)90002-9
   Google Scholar
• Yovel, G., Pelc, T., & Lubetzky, I. (2010). It's all in your head: Why is the body inversion effect abolished for headless bodies? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 759–767.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, A. B., & Zacks, J. M. (2010). The role of animacy in spatial transformations. Memory & Cognition, 38, 982–993. doi:10.3758/MC.38.7.982
   Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., & Michelon, P. (2005). Transformations of visuospatial images. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 96–118. doi:10.1177/1534582305281085
   Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., Mires, J., Tversky, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2002). Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 2, 315–332. doi: 10.1023/A:1015584100204
   Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2005). Multiple systems for spatial imagery: Transformations of objects and bodies. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5, 271–306. doi: 10.1207/s15427633scc0504_1
   Google Scholar