Brian MacWhinney · 2012
This paper examines the effects of perspective taking on grammar and the processing of sentences. The perspective hypothesis claims that language allows us to shift perspective on four cognitive levels. The specific claims are that: 1. Perspective taking operates online using images created in four systems: direct experience, space/time deixis, plans, and social role taking. 2. Language uses perspective taking to bind together these four imagery subsystems. 3. Grammar arose as a social convenience to support accurate tracking and switching of perspective. 4. Language comprehension and production use both depictive and enactive imagery. Depictive imagery relies on the ventral image processing system, whereas enactive imagery relies on the dorsal system for perception-action linkages. Perspective taking depends primarily on processing in the dorsal stream. 5. On the level of direct experience, perspective shifting depends on imagery grounded directly on body maps. 6. On the level of deixis in space and time, perspective shifting depends on the projection of the body image across egocentric, allocentric, and geocentric frames. 7. On the level of plans, perspective shifting in the transitivity system assigns roles to referents through the transitivity system. Premotor working memory areas and inferior frontal action planning areas provide the processing capacity to control perspective shifts in action chains. 8. On the level of social roles, perspective switching through speech acts allows us to construct images of social reality. Switching of social perspectives is facilitated by a functional circuit including prefrontal cortex and medial structures. 9. By tracing perspective shifts in language, children are able to learn the cognitive pathways and mental models sanctioned by their culture. 10. The emergence of language as a species-specific human skill depends on a series of gradual evolutionary adaptations that supported perspective taking in the four subsystems, as well as additional adaptations for vocal control. 2 Perspective
Cited by 0
Steven Samuel, Madeline J. Eacott, Geoff G. Cole · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · 2022
What happens when an observer takes an agent's visual perspective of a scene? We conducted a series of experiments designed to measure what proportion of adults take a <i>stimulus-centered</i> rather than <i>agent</i>-<i>centered</i> approach to a visual perspective taking task. Adults were presented with images of an agent looking at a number (69). From the perspective of the viewer, the number appeared upside down. We then asked participants what number the agent saw. An agent-centered approach, that is, one that takes into account the other's visual experience, should produce the correct answer "69". Even an egocentric error (i.e., the participant's own perspective) would provide the same correct response. We were interested in what proportion of participants would give the incorrect answer "96", which is best explained by a stimulus-centered rather than agent-centered strategy, namely "flipping" each digit one at a time from left to right. Crucially, such a strategy ignores the alternative visual perspective. We found that, on average, 12-21% of participants made this error. We discuss this finding in the context of the key questions around representation, content, and Theory of Mind in visual perspective taking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Cited by 9
Ayumi Kambara · The Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association · 2014
Cited by 0Open access
Barbara Tversky A, Bridgette Martin Hard B · 2008
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit:
Cited by 0
Lisa M. Osbeck · Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2018
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Cited by 0
Clara Kulich, Janine Bosak, Samantha Paustian-Underdahl · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Cited by 0
Gary Lupyan, Justin Sulik · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018
Supplementary material for 'Perspective taking in a novel signaling task: effects of world knowledge and contextual constraint' (Sulik and Lupyan, submitted)
Cited by 0
Jonas R. Kunst · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018
Cited by 0
Kulich, Clara, Paustian-Underdahl, Samantha, Bosak, Janine · Open Science Framework · 2020
Investigation whether perspective taking attenuates self-group distancing (queen bee) behaviors. Published in BJSP doi: 10.111/bjso.12812
Cited by 0Open access
Juliane Kaminski, Andrea Pitsch, Michael Tomasello et al. · 2013
Abstract All current evidence of visual perspective taking in dogs can possibly be explained by dogs reacting to certain stimuli rather than understanding what others see. In the current study, we set up a situation in which contextual information and social cues are in conflict. A human always forbade the dog from taking a piece of food. The part of the room being illuminated was then varied, for example, either the area where the human was seated or the area where the food was located was lit. Results show that dogs steal significantly more food when it is dark compared to when it is light. While stealing forbidden food the dog’s behaviour also depends on the type of illumination in the room. Illumination around the food, but not the human, affected the dogs ’ behaviour. This indicates that dogs do not take the sight of the human as a signal to avoid the food. It also cannot be explained by a low-level associative rule of avoiding illuminated food which dogs actually approach faster when they are in private. The current finding therefore raises the possibility that dogs take into account the human’s visual access to the food while making their decision to steal it.
Cited by 0
Virgil Zeigler‐Hill, Todd K. Shackelford · 2020
Cited by 0
Zou Hong · 2024
Cited by 0
Samantha Paustian-Underdahl, Janine Bosak, Clara Kulich · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2024
Investigation whether perspective taking attenuates self-group distancing (queen bee) behaviors Published in: Bosak, J., Kulich, C., Paustian-Underdahl, S. & Dingli, R. B. (2024). Perspective-taking attenuates ingroup distancing in women managers. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12812
Cited by 0Open access
Matti Wilks, Ali Ladak, Jacy Reese Anthis · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2023
Cited by 0
Brett Heasman, Alex Gillespie · 2022
Cited by 2
Justin Sulik, Gary Lupyan · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018
Supplementary material for 'Perspective taking in a novel signaling task: effects of world knowledge and contextual constraint' (Sulik and Lupyan, submitted)
Cited by 0
Ali Ladak, Matti Wilks, Jacy Reese Anthis · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Cited by 0
Marin Dujmović · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2025
This project investigates automatic perspective taking by utilizing the Dot Perspective Task developed by Samson and colleagues in 2010 (https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0018729). There has ben a debate as to whether the interference from another person's perspective when judging scenes form one's own (measured by increased error rates and slower responses) is due to automatically processing what other people see in the context of theory of mind and social cognition or is it purely due to domain-general processes (diverted attention). Through 3 experiments we manipulate task characteristics (avatar type, directional cues) in a modified Dot Perspective Task in order to disambiguate between these two options.
Cited by 0
Richard Rodney Bennett, Joseph E. Oliver · 2025
Cited by 0
Brett Heasman, Alex Gillespie · 2020
Cited by 3