Signatures of cognitive difficulty in perspective-taking: is the egocentric perspective always the easiest to adopt?

References

• Avraamides, M. N., & Carlson, R. A. (2003). Egocentric organization of spatial activities in imagined navigation. Memory & Cognition, 31, 252–261. doi: 10.3758/BF03194384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avraamides, M. N., Hatzipanayioti, A., & Galati, A. (2015). What’s so difficult with adopting imagined perspectives? Cognitive Processing, 16, (Suppl. 1), 121–124. doi: 10.1007/s10339-015-0728-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avraamides, M. N., & Kelly, J. W. (2008). Multiple systems of spatial memory and action. Cognitive Processing, 9, 93–106. doi: 10.1007/s10339-007-0188-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avraamides, M. N., & Sofroniou, S. G. (2006). Spatial frameworks in imagined navigation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 510–515. doi: 10.3758/BF03193878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., & Singmann, H. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, 2014. R package version, 1–1.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1482–1493. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1482
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., Galati, A., & Kuhlen, A. K. (2010). Two minds, one dialog: Coordinating speaking and understanding. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 53, pp. 301–345). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01019.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind & Language, 28, 606–637. doi: 10.1111/mila.12036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vega, M. (2008). Levels of embodied meaning: From pointing to counterfactuals. In M. De Vega (Ed.), Symbols and embodiment (pp. 285–308). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duran, N. D., & Dale, R. (2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 131–146. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2013.03.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran, N. D., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121, 22–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin, N., & Tversky, B. (1990). Searching imagined environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 63–76. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.119.1.63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frings, C., & Wentura, D. (2014). Self-prioritization processes in action and perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1737–1740. doi: 10.1037/a0037376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2015). Social and representational cues jointly influence spatial perspective-taking. Cognitive Science, 39, 739–765. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., Michael, C., Mello, C., Greenauer, N. M., & Avraamides, M. N. (2013). The conversational partner’s perspective affects spatial memory and descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 140–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galati, A., Panagiotou, E., Tenbrink, T., & Avraamides, M. N. (2017). Dynamic strategy selection in collaborative spatial tasks. Discourse Processes, 23, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1293482
   Google Scholar
• Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gredebäck, G., Johnson, S., & von Hofsten, C. (2010). Eye tracking in infancy research. Developmental Neurophysiology, 35, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Greenauer, N., & Waller, D. (2008). Intrinsic array structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for nonegocentric coding of spatial layouts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1015–1021. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.1015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzipanayioti, A., Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2016a). The protagonist’s first perspective influences the encoding of spatial information in narratives. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 506–520. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1056194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatzipanayioti, A., Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2016b). Updating spatial relations to remote locations described in narratives. Memory & Cognition, 44, 1259–1276. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0635-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hölscher, C., Tenbrink, T., & Wiener, J. M. (2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognitive strategies in urban route planning. Cognition, 121, 228–247. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)81418-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, G. W., & Sui, J. (2015). The salient self: Social saliency effects based on self-bias. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2014.996156
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keehner, M., Guerin, S. A., Miller, M. B., Turk, D. J., & Hegarty, M. (2006). Modulation of neural activity by angle of rotation during imagined spatial transformations. Neuroimage, 33, 391–398. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, K., & Thomson, L. A. (2010). The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: Embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition, 114, 72–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Paek, T. S. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 1–20. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2563
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric bias of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 46–49. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20182500 doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep13175613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330, 1830–1834. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40986593 doi: 10.1126/science.1190792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., Carlson, L. A., Mou, W., Williams, M. R., & Miller, J. E. (2011). Describing spatial locations from perception and memory: The influence of intrinsic axes on reference object selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 222–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis, J. M., Lippa, Y., Klatzky, R. L., & Golledge, R. G. (2002). Spatial updating of locations specified by 3-D sound and spatial language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 335–345. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.2.335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, S. D., Tversky, B., Ohgishi, M., & Schiano, D. J. (2003). Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 3, 3–42. doi: 10.1207/S15427633SCC0301_2
   Google Scholar
• Marchette, S. A., & Shelton, A. L. (2010). Object properties and frame of reference in spatial memory representations. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10, 1–27. doi: 10.1080/13875860903509406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, M. (2004). Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 163–206. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00127-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P. (2003). How are the locations of objects in the environment represented in memory? In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: Spatial cognition III (pp. 174–191). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects in the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 201–213. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00028-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mou, W., & McNamara, T. P. (2002). Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 162–170. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.162
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mou, W., McNamara, T. P., Valiquette, C. M., & Rump, B. (2004). Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 142–157. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman-Norlund, S. E., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Volman, I. A. C., De Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., & Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111, 46–54. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 167–226. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proulx, M. J., Todorov, O. S., Aiken, A. T., & de Sousa, A. A. (2016). Where am I? Who am I? The relation between spatial cognition, social cognition and individual differences in the built environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Rieser, J. J., Guth, D. A., & Hill, E. W. (1986). Sensitivity to perspective structure while walking without vision. Perception, 15, 173–188. doi: 10.1068/p150173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche, J., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). The resolution of ambiguity during conversation: More than mere mimicry? In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 206–211). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R. A., Brown-Schmidt, S., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., Yiu, L. K., & Nguyen, E. T. (2014). Visuospatial perspective-taking in conversation and the role of bilingual experience. Journal of Memory and Language, 74, 46–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryskin, R. A., Wang, R. F., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2016). Listeners use speaker identity to access representations of spatial perspective during online language comprehension. Cognition, 147, 75–84. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.11.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. A., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what others see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1255–1266. doi: 10.1037/a0018729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective-taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90060-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (1995). Speakers, addressees, and frames of reference: Whose effort is minimized in conversations about location? Discourse Processes, 20, 219–247. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schober, M. F. (2009). Spatial dialogue between partners with mismatched abilities. In K. R. Coventry, T. Tenbrink, & J. A. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (pp. 23–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shelton, A. L., & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Visual memories from nonvisual experiences. Psychological Science, 12, 343–347. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40063643 doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00363
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 260–273. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01018.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1105–1117. doi: 10.1037/a0029792
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371–391. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., & Hard, B.-M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., Lee, P., & Mainwaring, S. D. (1999). Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cognition and Computation, 1, 399–412. doi: 10.1023/A:1010091730257
   Google Scholar
• Zacks, J. M., & Michelon, P. (2005). Transformations of visuospatial images. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 96–118. doi: 10.1177/1534582305281085
   PubMedGoogle Scholar