title: Visual perspective taking and laterality decisions: Problems and possible solutions.
abstract: Perspective taking plays an important role in different areas of psychological and neuroscientific research. Visual perspective taking is an especially prominent approach generally using one of two experimental tasks: in the own-body-transformation task observers are asked to judge the laterality of a salient feature of a human figure (e.g., is the glove on the left or right hand?) from the figure's perspective. In the avatar-in-scene task they decide about the laterality of objects in a scene (e.g., is the flower on the left or right?) from the avatar's point of view. Increases in latencies and/or errors are interpreted as originating from additional cognitive processes predominately described as observer-based perspective transformations. A closer look reveals that such an account is disputable on grounds related to the use of laterality judgments. Other transformation accounts, i.e., object or array transformations, as well as non-transformational accounts, i.e., extra processing due to spatial conflicts, have not been adequately considered, tested, or ruled out by existing research. Our review examines visual perspective tasks in detail, identifies problems and makes recommendations for future research.
authors.affiliation: Spatial Cognition Research Unit, Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: May
authors.forename: Mike
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Wendt
keywords: agency; embodiment; laterality tasks; mental transformation; own-body-transformation task; spatial S-R compatibility; spatial cognition; visual perspective taking
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2010 Dec;74(3):193-202
references.pmid: 20888110
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995 Mar;21(2):483-500
references.pmid: 7738511
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Dec;47(4):402-31
references.pmid: 14642290
references.citation: Cognition. 1998 Jul;67(1-2):1-20
references.pmid: 9735534
references.citation: Conscious Cogn. 2010 Sep;19(3):690-701
references.pmid: 20363157
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Jan;26(1):151-68
references.pmid: 10682295
references.citation: Cortex. 2011 Jul-Aug;47(7):839-53
references.pmid: 20598679
references.citation: Soc Neurosci. 2013;8(3):248-67
references.pmid: 23350907
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Sep;31(6):941-52
references.pmid: 14651301
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2006 Feb;68(2):327-37
references.pmid: 16773904
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Jan;25(1):137-56
references.pmid: 9949712
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Mar;48(2):163-206
references.pmid: 14732410
references.citation: Cogn Process. 2008 May;9(2):93-106
references.pmid: 17899235
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2010 Jun;73(1):35-40
references.pmid: 20338681
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2007 Apr 1;35(2):916-27
references.pmid: 17275336
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2009 May;195(2):207-17
references.pmid: 19326106
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):22-40
references.pmid: 21752357
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2013 May;41(4):558-70
references.pmid: 23307504
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2006 Oct 15;33(1):391-8
references.pmid: 16935007
references.citation: Child Dev. 2012 Mar-Apr;83(2):452-60
references.pmid: 22335247
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Apr;57(3):419-36
references.pmid: 15204134
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 06;1:213
references.pmid: 21833268
references.citation: Hum Mov Sci. 2012 Oct;31(5):1151-60
references.pmid: 22244585
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 2006 Jun;120(3):528-34
references.pmid: 16768604
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1987 Jun;116(2):172-91
references.pmid: 2955072
references.citation: Cognition. 2004 Dec;94(2):185-92
references.pmid: 15582626
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1999 Aug;37(9):1029-40
references.pmid: 10468366
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2010 May;101(Pt 2):277-91
references.pmid: 19619391
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 Aug;135(3):327-47
references.pmid: 16846268
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jul;137(3):371-81
references.pmid: 21596360
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Aug;20(4):731-50
references.pmid: 8083631
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Jun;16(5):817-27
references.pmid: 15200709
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2007 Mar;35(1):326-33
references.pmid: 17223577
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2010 Oct;38(7):982-93
references.pmid: 20921110
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Jan;114(1):72-88
references.pmid: 19782971
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2007 May;71(3):277-87
references.pmid: 16957955
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2011 Jun;76(1):97-105
references.pmid: 21429647
references.citation: Conscious Cogn. 2012 Mar;21(1):494-500
references.pmid: 22221741
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 May;140(1):1-6
references.pmid: 22426425
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989 Nov;15(6):1157-65
references.pmid: 2530309
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2006 Aug 2;26(31):8074-81
references.pmid: 16885221
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Dec;10(4):907-16
references.pmid: 15000538
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2002 Aug;16(4):857-72
references.pmid: 12202075
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Nov;33(6):1092-107
references.pmid: 17983315
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Oct 1;15(7):1002-18
references.pmid: 14614811
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2010 Sep;15(5):477-500
references.pmid: 20437282
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2005 Jan 19;25(3):550-7
references.pmid: 15659590
references.citation: Cogn Process. 2012 Aug;13 Suppl 1:S257-60
references.pmid: 22806652
references.citation: Neuroscience. 2009 Apr 10;159(4):1316-25
references.pmid: 19217928
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Dec;16(6):1089-93
references.pmid: 19966260