The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions

We set out to distinguish level 1 (VPT-1) and level 2 (VPT-2) perspective taking with respect to the embodied nature of the underlying processes as well as to investigate their dependence or independence of response modality (motor vs. verbal). While VPT-1 reflects understanding of what lies within someone else’s line of sight, VPT-2 involves mentally adopting someone else’s spatial point of view. Perspective taking is a high-level conscious and deliberate mental transformation that is crucially placed at the convergence of perception, mental imagery, communication, and even theory of mind in the case of VPT-2. The differences between VPT-1 and VPT-2 mark a qualitative boundary between humans and apes, with the latter being capable of VPT-1 but not of VPT-2. However, our recent data showed that VPT-2 is best conceptualized as the deliberate simulation or emulation of a movement, thus underpinning its embodied origins. In the work presented here we compared VPT-2 to VPT-1 and found that VPT-1 is not at all, or very differently embodied. In a second experiment we replicated the qualitatively different patterns for VPT-1 and VPT-2 with verbal responses that employed spatial prepositions. We conclude that VPT-1 is the cognitive process that subserves verbal localizations using “in front” and “behind,” while VPT-2 subserves “left” and “right” from a perspective other than the egocentric. We further conclude that both processes are grounded and situated, but only VPT-2 is embodied in the form of a deliberate movement simulation that increases in mental effort with distance and incongruent proprioception. The differences in cognitive effort predict differences in the use of the associated prepositions. Our findings, therefore, shed light on the situated, grounded and embodied basis of spatial localizations and on the psychology of their use.

Examining links between cognitive markers, movement initiation and change, and pedestrian safety in older adults

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which mobility indices (such as walking speed and postural sway), motor initiation, and cognitive function, specifically executive functions, including spatial planning, visual attention, and within participant variability, differentially predicted collisions in the near and far sides of the road with increasing age. Methods: Adults aged over 45 years participated in cognitive tests measuring executive function and visual attention (using Useful Field of View; UFoV®), mobility assessments (walking speed, sit-to-stand, self-reported mobility, and postural sway assessed using motion capture cameras), and gave road crossing choices in a two-way filmed real traffic pedestrian simulation. Results: A stepwise regression model of walking speed, start-up delay variability, and processing speed) explained 49.4% of the variance in near-side crossing errors. Walking speed, start-up delay measures (average & variability), and spatial planning explained 54.8% of the variance in far-side unsafe crossing errors. Start-up delay was predicted by walking speed only (explained 30.5%). Conclusion: Walking speed and start-up delay measures were consistent predictors of unsafe crossing behaviours. Cognitive measures, however, differentially predicted near-side errors (processing speed), and far-side errors (spatial planning). These findings offer potential contributions for identifying and rehabilitating at-risk older pedestrians.