The multi-cue influence mechanism of spatial communication across different perspectives

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1013

Cite this article

JIAN Jinhan, ZHANG Junheng, YAN Bihua, JI Ming. (2025). The multi-cue influence mechanism of spatial communication across different perspectives. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(6), 1013-1040.

share this article

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1013

https://journal.psych.ac.cn/acps/EN/Y2025/V57/I6/1013

Figures/Tables 21

Table 1 Summary of the stepwise regression model for reference frame selection under first-person perspective (N = 53 × 28 = 1484)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model^a	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	66.10%	6443.44	6454.03	3	1480	41.20	< 0.001	0.077
Consistency level				3	1480	41.20	< 0.001	0.077
2	66.00%	6451.31	6461.90	4	1479	32.43	< 0.001	0.081
Perspective-taking ability				1	1479	9.02	0.003	0.006
3	66.40%	6468.42	6479.00	8	1475	17.27	< 0.001	0.086
Consistency level × Field cognitive style				4	1475	2.91	0.02	0.007
4^b	78.30%	9520.63	9531.18	32	1451	8.98	< 0.001	0.165
Consistency level × Target object				24	1451	10.36	< 0.001	0.143

Table 1 Summary of the stepwise regression model for reference frame selection under first-person perspective (N = 53 × 28 = 1484)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model^a	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	66.10%	6443.44	6454.03	3	1480	41.20	< 0.001	0.077
Consistency level				3	1480	41.20	< 0.001	0.077
2	66.00%	6451.31	6461.90	4	1479	32.43	< 0.001	0.081
Perspective-taking ability				1	1479	9.02	0.003	0.006
3	66.40%	6468.42	6479.00	8	1475	17.27	< 0.001	0.086
Consistency level × Field cognitive style				4	1475	2.91	0.02	0.007
4^b	78.30%	9520.63	9531.18	32	1451	8.98	< 0.001	0.165
Consistency level × Target object				24	1451	10.36	< 0.001	0.143

Figure 1. Reference frame selection under different consistency levels in the first-person perspective (M ± SE, error bars represent standard error, p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, same hereafter).

Figure 1. Reference frame selection under different consistency levels in the first-person perspective (M ± SE, error bars represent standard error, p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, same hereafter).

Figure 2. Reference frame selection at different consistency levels by subjects with two types of field cognitive styles in the first- person perspective.

Figure 2. Reference frame selection at different consistency levels by subjects with two types of field cognitive styles in the first- person perspective.

Table 2 Summary of the stepwise regression model for organization duration in first-person perspective (N = 53 × 28 = 1484)

Response variable: Organization duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	2790.13	2800.72	3	1480	4.44	0.004	0.009
Consistency level				3	1480	4.44	0.004	0.009
2	Gamma distribution	2348.99	2359.57	9	1474	28.56	< 0.001	0.148
Target object				6	1474	33.08	< 0.001	0.115
3	Gamma distribution	2372.56	2383.12	27	1456	16.36	< 0.001	0.233
Consistency level × Target object				18	1456	2.01	0.007	0.019
4^a	Normal distribution	28726.94	28737.52	9	1474	16.27	< 0.001	0.090

Table 2 Summary of the stepwise regression model for organization duration in first-person perspective (N = 53 × 28 = 1484)

Response variable: Organization duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	2790.13	2800.72	3	1480	4.44	0.004	0.009
Consistency level				3	1480	4.44	0.004	0.009
2	Gamma distribution	2348.99	2359.57	9	1474	28.56	< 0.001	0.148
Target object				6	1474	33.08	< 0.001	0.115
3	Gamma distribution	2372.56	2383.12	27	1456	16.36	< 0.001	0.233
Consistency level × Target object				18	1456	2.01	0.007	0.019
4^a	Normal distribution	28726.94	28737.52	9	1474	16.27	< 0.001	0.090

Figure 3. Organization duration at different consistency levels in the first-person perspective.

Figure 3. Organization duration at different consistency levels in the first-person perspective.

Table 3 Summary of stepwise regression model for reference frame selection under third-person perspective (N = 45 × 28 = 1260)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	66.30%	5420.65	5430.91	3	1256	15.43	< 0.001	0.036
Consistency level				3	1256	15.43	< 0.001	0.036
2	76.70%	6421.39	6431.62	27	1232	8.29	< 0.001	0.154
Consistency level × Target object				24	1232	8.80	< 0.001	0.145

Table 3 Summary of stepwise regression model for reference frame selection under third-person perspective (N = 45 × 28 = 1260)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	66.30%	5420.65	5430.91	3	1256	15.43	< 0.001	0.036
Consistency level				3	1256	15.43	< 0.001	0.036
2	76.70%	6421.39	6431.62	27	1232	8.29	< 0.001	0.154
Consistency level × Target object				24	1232	8.80	< 0.001	0.145

Figure 4. Reference frame selection under different consistency levels in the third-person perspective.

Figure 4. Reference frame selection under different consistency levels in the third-person perspective.

Table 4 Summary of the stepwise regression model for reference frame selection. (N = 98 × 28 = 2744)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	64.00%	11842.45	11854.28	3	2740	54.06	< 0.001	0.056
Consistency level				3	2740	54.06	< 0.001	0.056
2	64.10%	11849.56	11861.39	4	2739	41.68	< 0.001	0.057
Perspective-taking ability				1	2739	5.92	0.015	0.002
3	64.40%	11856.19	11868.01	5	2738	34.26	< 0.001	0.059
Perspective				1	2738	5.92	0.015	0.002
4	64.70%	11867.17	11879.00	8	2735	22.44	< 0.001	0.062
Consistency level × Perspective				3	2735	3.10	0.026	0.003
5	77.00%	14280.18	14291.99	32	2711	15.85	< 0.001	0.158
Consistency level × Target object				24	2711	18.85	< 0.001	0.141

Table 4 Summary of the stepwise regression model for reference frame selection. (N = 98 × 28 = 2744)

Response variable: Reference frame selection				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	64.00%	11842.45	11854.28	3	2740	54.06	< 0.001	0.056
Consistency level				3	2740	54.06	< 0.001	0.056
2	64.10%	11849.56	11861.39	4	2739	41.68	< 0.001	0.057
Perspective-taking ability				1	2739	5.92	0.015	0.002
3	64.40%	11856.19	11868.01	5	2738	34.26	< 0.001	0.059
Perspective				1	2738	5.92	0.015	0.002
4	64.70%	11867.17	11879.00	8	2735	22.44	< 0.001	0.062
Consistency level × Perspective				3	2735	3.10	0.026	0.003
5	77.00%	14280.18	14291.99	32	2711	15.85	< 0.001	0.158
Consistency level × Target object				24	2711	18.85	< 0.001	0.141

Figure 5. Reference frame selection under different observational perspectives.

Figure 5. Reference frame selection under different observational perspectives.

Table 5 Summary of the stepwise regression model for receiver's comprehension correctness in the first-person perspective (N = 56 × 56 = 3136)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	84.20%	15984.50	15996.59	7	3128	27.01	< 0.001	0.057
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				7	3128	27.01	< 0.001	0.057
2	90.30%	19743.10	19755.19	13	3122	28.22	< 0.001	0.105
Target object				6	3122	43.34	< 0.001	0.075

Table 5 Summary of the stepwise regression model for receiver's comprehension correctness in the first-person perspective (N = 56 × 56 = 3136)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	84.20%	15984.50	15996.59	7	3128	27.01	< 0.001	0.057
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				7	3128	27.01	< 0.001	0.057
2	90.30%	19743.10	19755.19	13	3122	28.22	< 0.001	0.105
Target object				6	3122	43.34	< 0.001	0.075

Figure 6. Comprehension correctness of the two reference frame expressions under different spatial cue consistency levels from the first-person perspective.

Figure 6. Comprehension correctness of the two reference frame expressions under different spatial cue consistency levels from the first-person perspective.

Table 6 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration in first-person perspective (N = 56 × 56 = 3136)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	2372.99	2385.09	1	3134	59.52	< 0.001	0.019
Statement reference frame				1	3134	59.52	< 0.001	0.019
2	Gamma distribution	2374.34	2386.44	2	3133	33.19	< 0.001	0.021
Perspective-taking ability				1	3133	6.99	0.008	0.002
3	Gamma distribution	2278.08	2290.17	8	3127	22.73	< 0.001	0.055
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	3127	15.17	< 0.001	0.028
4	Gamma distribution	1731.40	1743.48	14	3121	32.33	< 0.001	0.127
Target object				6	3121	62.00	< 0.001	0.104
5	Gamma distribution	1756.06	1768.13	32	3103	27.15	< 0.001	0.219
Consistency level × Target object				18	3103	4.70	< 0.001	0.021
6^a	Normal distribution	52831.08	52843.17	14	3121	25.00	< 0.001	0.101

Table 6 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration in first-person perspective (N = 56 × 56 = 3136)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	2372.99	2385.09	1	3134	59.52	< 0.001	0.019
Statement reference frame				1	3134	59.52	< 0.001	0.019
2	Gamma distribution	2374.34	2386.44	2	3133	33.19	< 0.001	0.021
Perspective-taking ability				1	3133	6.99	0.008	0.002
3	Gamma distribution	2278.08	2290.17	8	3127	22.73	< 0.001	0.055
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	3127	15.17	< 0.001	0.028
4	Gamma distribution	1731.40	1743.48	14	3121	32.33	< 0.001	0.127
Target object				6	3121	62.00	< 0.001	0.104
5	Gamma distribution	1756.06	1768.13	32	3103	27.15	< 0.001	0.219
Consistency level × Target object				18	3103	4.70	< 0.001	0.021
6^a	Normal distribution	52831.08	52843.17	14	3121	25.00	< 0.001	0.101

Figure 7. Comprehension duration for statements with different reference frames in the first-person perspective.

Figure 7. Comprehension duration for statements with different reference frames in the first-person perspective.

Figure 8. Comprehension duration of the two reference frame expressions under different spatial cue consistency levels from the first-person perspective.

Figure 8. Comprehension duration of the two reference frame expressions under different spatial cue consistency levels from the first-person perspective.

Table 7 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension correctness under the third-person perspective (N = 44 × 56 = 2464)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	82.40%	12447.77	12459.38	7	2456	10.38	<0.001	0.029
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				7	2456	10.38	<0.001	0.029
2	87.50%	14904.66	14916.26	13	2450	19.17	<0.001	0.092
Target object				6	2450	35.21	<0.001	0.078

Table 7 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension correctness under the third-person perspective (N = 44 × 56 = 2464)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	82.40%	12447.77	12459.38	7	2456	10.38	<0.001	0.029
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				7	2456	10.38	<0.001	0.029
2	87.50%	14904.66	14916.26	13	2450	19.17	<0.001	0.092
Target object				6	2450	35.21	<0.001	0.078

Figure 9. The comprehension correctness of two types of referential statement sentences at different spatial cue consistency levels under the third-person perspective.

Figure 9. The comprehension correctness of two types of referential statement sentences at different spatial cue consistency levels under the third-person perspective.

Table 8 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration in third-person perspective (N = 44 × 56 = 2464)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	1357.95	1369.56	1	2462	77.73	<0.001	0.031
Statement reference frame				1	2462	77.73	<0.001	0.031
2	Gamma distribution	1315.50	1327.11	7	2456	15.97	<0.001	0.044
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	2456	8.98	<0.001	0.021
3	Gamma distribution	802.60	814.21	13	2450	20.43	<0.001	0.098
Target object				6	2450	35.60	<0.001	0.079
4	Gamma distribution	832.06	843.65	31	2432	21.99	<0.001	0.219
Consistency level × Target object				18	2432	5.61	<0.001	0.032
5^a	Normal distribution	40639.02	40650.62	13	2450	13.71	<0.001	0.068

Table 8 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration in third-person perspective (N = 44 × 56 = 2464)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	1357.95	1369.56	1	2462	77.73	<0.001	0.031
Statement reference frame				1	2462	77.73	<0.001	0.031
2	Gamma distribution	1315.50	1327.11	7	2456	15.97	<0.001	0.044
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	2456	8.98	<0.001	0.021
3	Gamma distribution	802.60	814.21	13	2450	20.43	<0.001	0.098
Target object				6	2450	35.60	<0.001	0.079
4	Gamma distribution	832.06	843.65	31	2432	21.99	<0.001	0.219
Consistency level × Target object				18	2432	5.61	<0.001	0.032
5^a	Normal distribution	40639.02	40650.62	13	2450	13.71	<0.001	0.068

Figure 10. Comprehension duration of sentence expressions with different reference frames under the third-person perspective.

Figure 10. Comprehension duration of sentence expressions with different reference frames under the third-person perspective.

Figure 11. The comprehension duration of statements with two reference frames under different spatial cue consistency levels from a third-person perspective.

Figure 11. The comprehension duration of statements with two reference frames under different spatial cue consistency levels from a third-person perspective.

Table 9 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension correctness (N = 100 × 56 = 5600)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	83.30%	27666.65	27679.91	1	5598	6.83	0.009	0.001
Statement reference frame				1	5598	6.83	0.009	0.001
2	83.40%	28341.70	28354.95	7	5592	36.56	<0.001	0.044
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	5592	41.84	<0.001	0.043
3	88.70%	34468.34	34481.60	13	5586	46.05	<0.001	0.097
Target object				6	5586	76.45	<0.001	0.074

Table 9 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension correctness (N = 100 × 56 = 5600)

Response variable: Comprehension correctness				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Accuracy	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	83.30%	27666.65	27679.91	1	5598	6.83	0.009	0.001
Statement reference frame				1	5598	6.83	0.009	0.001
2	83.40%	28341.70	28354.95	7	5592	36.56	<0.001	0.044
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	5592	41.84	<0.001	0.043
3	88.70%	34468.34	34481.60	13	5586	46.05	<0.001	0.097
Target object				6	5586	76.45	<0.001	0.074

Table 10 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration (N = 100 × 56 = 5600)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	3750.29	3763.55	1	5598	125.33	<0.001	0.022
Statement reference frame				1	5598	125.33	<0.001	0.022
2	Gamma distribution	3588.63	3601.89	7	5592	34.92	<0.001	0.042
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	5592	20.50	<0.001	0.021
3	Gamma distribution	2520.44	2533.70	13	5586	48.90	<0.001	0.102
Target object				6	5586	94.51	<0.001	0.091
4	Gamma distribution	2543.86	2557.11	31	5568	26.06	<0.001	0.127
Consistency level × Target object				18	5568	5.16	<0.001	0.015
5^a	Normal distribution	93733.30	93746 55	13	5586	35.73	<0.001	0.077

Table 10 Summary of the stepwise regression model for comprehension duration (N = 100 × 56 = 5600)

Response variable: Comprehension duration				Significance test				Effect size
Model	Distribution assumption	AICC	BIC	df1	df2	F	p	R²/Partial R2
1	Gamma distribution	3750.29	3763.55	1	5598	125.33	<0.001	0.022
Statement reference frame				1	5598	125.33	<0.001	0.022
2	Gamma distribution	3588.63	3601.89	7	5592	34.92	<0.001	0.042
Consistency level × Statement reference frame				6	5592	20.50	<0.001	0.021
3	Gamma distribution	2520.44	2533.70	13	5586	48.90	<0.001	0.102
Target object				6	5586	94.51	<0.001	0.091
4	Gamma distribution	2543.86	2557.11	31	5568	26.06	<0.001	0.127
Consistency level × Target object				18	5568	5.16	<0.001	0.015
5^a	Normal distribution	93733.30	93746 55	13	5586	35.73	<0.001	0.077

References

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Comments

Abstract
Figures/Tables
References
Related Articles
Recommended Articles
Metrics
Comments

TOP