Abstract
Prior results on the spatial integration of layouts within a room differed regarding the reference frame that participants used for integration. We asked whether these differences also occur when integrating 2D screen views and, if so, what the reasons for this might be. In four experiments we showed that integrating reference frames varied as a function of task familiarity combined with processing time, cues for spatial transformation, and information about action requirements paralleling results in the 3D case. Participants saw part of an object layout in screen 1, another part in screen 2, and reacted on the integrated layout in screen 3. Layout presentations between two screens coincided or differed in orientation. Aligning misaligned screens for integration is known to increase errors/latencies. The error/latency pattern was thus indicative of the reference frame used for integration. We showed that task familiarity combined with self-paced learning, visual updating, and knowing from where to act prioritized the integration within the reference frame of the initial presentation, which was updated later, and from where participants acted respectively. Participants also heavily relied on layout intrinsic frames. The results show how humans flexibly adjust their integration strategy to a wide variety of conditions.
Highlights
In daily life, people experience rooms, buildings or neighborhoods, and information on displays from successive gazes and views
We examined whether familiarity with a task together with familiarity with the layout as established by the self-determined learning time would result in prioritizing earlier reference frames
The participants in Experiment 1 relied on layout intrinsic reference frames
Summary
People experience rooms, buildings or neighborhoods, and information on displays from successive gazes and views. They might never see the whole environment at once, they develop a grasp of its overall structure. At least two levels of spatial integration can be distinguished: integration across gazes into a common view and integration across views. Such overlap is not necessarily present when integrating multiple views, for example, opposite room views. Integration across gazes happens on a short time scale and is usually examined within 2D screens [4,5,6]. Integration across views may happen in 2D (e.g., on a screen) and in 3D, both on a short
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
