How Flexible Is the Visuospatial Reference System in Children Aged 4 to 12?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to correctly process spatial information largely depends on the capacity to either use a viewpoint according to a visual scene or a Frame Of Reference (FOR) and to flexibly shift between them. Literature indicates 2 types of FOR mainly used to represent the location of an object. The egocentric FOR uses the location of an object relative to oneself and develops earlier than the allocentric FOR, which uses the location of an object relative to other external objects. This study examined the spontaneous use of different FOR as well as their use following explicit task instructions. One hundred and thirty-five children (aged 4-12) were assessed with an adapted version of Taylor and Rapp’s (2004) spatial reference task. In the spontaneous instructions condition, most of the children aged 7 and above used an allocentric FOR. While in the allocentric instructions condition, children aged 4, 5 and 6 gave significantly more allocentric responses. In the egocentric instructions condition, all participants showed more egocentric responses, independently of their age group. The present study is the first to demonstrate that simple instructions enable children to use allocentric and egocentric FOR earlier, more effectively and more flexibly than do their spontaneous use. These findings also demonstrate that specific instructions could help children use a viewpoint in accordance to a situation. This could help improve academic performances and overcome the difficulties of some young children in developing the use of an allocentric FOR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".