Theories of spatial representations and reference frames: What can configuration errors tell us?
Open accessAbstract
The issue of reference frame is central to theories of spatial representations. Various classifications have been made for different types of reference frames, along with prototypical research paradigms to distinguish between them. This article focuses on the configuration error paradigm proposed by Wang and Spelke (Cognition 77:215-250, 2000) that has been used to examine the nature of the spatial representations underlying object localization during self-movement. Three basic models of spatial memory and spatial updating are discussed, as well as the assumptions behind the configuration error paradigm, to distinguish between static representations, such as the traditional allocentric cognitive map and the egocentric snapshots, and dynamic representations, such as the egocentric updating system. Recent experimental findings are reexamined and shown to be consistent with multiple models, among which the egocentric-updating-and-reload model with an enduring egocentric component provides the simplest interpretations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Some researchers have proposed that the mental representation of allocentric spatial information formed through direct experience is not map-like (Ekstrom et al., 2017; Wang, 2012; Warren et al., 2017).
“Some researchers have proposed that the mental representation of allocentric spatial information formed through direct experience is not map-like (Ekstrom et al., 2017; Wang, 2012; Warren et al., 2017).”
From Does viewing a top-down map facilitate spatial learning from navigation in a virtual environment? (2026) · cites this paper as Wang, 2012
The Conclusions (page unavailable) say configuration-error findings reject a traditional allocentric cognitive map as the mechanism for object localization during observer movements. But they also say other models, including ones with an allocentric map, remain consistent with some findings. The paper therefore supports a challenge to map-based explanations, not the broader claim that allocentric information learned through direct experience is represented non-map-like. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 52 · Cited by 49
- Authors
- Wang, R. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Ranxiao Frances
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2012-05-08
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 575-587
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2030377019
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 0.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- spatial representation, reference frames, spatial memory, spatial updating, object localization, self-motion, spatial cognition
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Humans, Memory, Models, Psychological, Space Perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
