Reframing spatial frames of reference: What can aging tell us about egocentric and allocentric navigation?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representations of space in mind are crucial for navigation, facilitating processes such as remembering landmark locations, understanding spatial relationships between objects, and integrating routes. A significant problem, however, is the lack of consensus on how these representations are encoded and stored in memory. Specifically, the nature of egocentric and allocentric frames of reference in human memory is widely debated. Yet, in recent investigations of the spatial domain across the lifespan, these distinctions in mnemonic spatial frames of reference have identified age-related impairments. In this review, we survey the ways in which different terms related to spatial representations in memory have been operationalized in past aging research and suggest a taxonomy to provide a common language for future investigations and theoretical discussion. This article is categorized under: Psychology > Memory Neuroscience > Cognition Psychology > Development and Aging.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it