Spatial Cognition, Development of

Theoretical Issues

Spatial ability has been an area of fierce debate in regard to the nature and course of cognitive development. Data-driven arguments are made from diverse perspectives as we gain information about the specifics of the changes in the spatial system over developmental time. Although much of the current research can trace its roots to the writing of Jean Piaget, the actual claims of a Piagetian view have come under increasing fire. There are a number of competing views vying to offer a new view of the development of spatial cognition. The first of these perspectives comes out of the repeated finding that Piaget underestimated the abilities of young infants. This view espouses a nativism (the claim that most if not all cognitive ability is inborn) that puts much emphasis on early ability and infant competence and less stress on later developments. A second view comes out of an interest in Vygotskian social learning (a view that most ability emerges from social experience and active tutoring) and puts emphasis on spatial language and the cultural milieu surrounding spatial development. The third view is an interactionist perspective that represents an attempt to integrate nativism and constructivism (the Piagetian view that children construct their own cognitive structures through active exploration) into a theory that accounts for early competence and subsequent developmental change. Interactionist models generally embrace the idea that cultural issues and environmental influences as well as early starting points [Page 714]and maturation all combine to produce an individual's developmental trajectory.

The Spatial Coding System

The development of spatial cognition starts out with a set of primitive responses that rapidly become the complex system that makes a toddler able to help us find our keys in the morning. Spatial coding has two possible frames of reference, both of which are important to solving our everyday spatial tasks. Within each of these two frames of reference there are two available spatial systems, one simple and the other complex. The first frame of reference is viewer centered. In this format the individual is the focus and their task is about remembering how to do something—that is, which movements in space will achieve the goal. The simplest use of a viewer-centered spatial ability is called response learning. This is the system that is functioning when you reach for your coffee cup on the desk while you are writing. The cup is in the same place every day and you do not need to do more than execute a movement of the arm and hand to achieve the goal. Response learning is powerful and successful when the position of the viewer has not changed; however, it cannot account for movement. If my chair has been moved 6 inches to the right, my reach does not encounter the coffee cup anymore. A more complex use of the viewer-centered system is called dead reckoning or inertial navigation. In this system the location and direction of the viewer movement is tracked in spatial memory, providing a continuously updating sense of location and direction. This system can be best seen when we are navigating in the dark. The weakness in this system is that it is susceptible to small errors in calculation that are compounded over time. A misjudgment of distance or turn angle is updated and used in all subsequent estimations. This accumulation of error leads to larger and larger inaccuracies over time.

...