Skip to main content
Log in

Achieving common grounds in communication via interfaces: a role of spatial frames for reference

  • Forum
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

The current paper argues for synchronising spatial frames of reference for achieving effective multiparty communication in collaborative virtual environments. Synchronising nonverbal behaviour from different modalities is an important step for simulating face-to-face-interaction where all nonverbal cues are available. Such synchronisation also serves as an effective basis for building multimodal interfaces especially if these have to be deployed for multiparty communication. It is argued that common spatial reference frames are helpful in coordinating different points of attention and facilitating work by serving as the springboard for joint attention among members of the team. Consequently, it is desirable to aim for such common grounds and not just focus on coordinating disjointed virtual spaces for facilitating decision-making by reducing felt collaborative effort. Implementing the synchronisation of spatial reference frames for modern technologies thus serves dual purposes by achieving common grounds in communication and maintaining autonomy of each member at the same time. Towards this end, the current paper proposes the concept of decentred egocentric frame, the origin of which is one’s own body and the spatial relation between two objects is defined with respect to this origin. This frame seems to be important for separating each member’s focus from his own body (self/activities) and also helps in coordinating one’s focus with those of the others whether interacting verbally or nonverbally. This is an important conceptual development as the proposed classification is hypothesised to function in a similar manner across different sensory modalities. The paper concludes with issues on implementation and other future conceptual developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Behrmann M, Geng JJ (2002) What is ‘left’ when all is said and done/spatial coding and hemispatial neglect. In: Karnath HO (ed) The cognitive and neural bases of spatial neglect. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford S, Fahlen L (1994) Viewpoints, actionpoints and spatial frames. In: Proceedings of HCI. pp 409–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Coluccia E, Mammarella IC, Beni RD, Ittyehrah M, Cornoldi C (2007) Remembering object position in the absence of vision: egocentric, allocentric and egocentric decentred frames of reference. Perception 36:850–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coluccia E, Mammarella IC, Cornoldi C (2009) Centred egocentric, decentred egocentric and allocentric spatial representation in the peripersonal space of congenital total blindness. Perception 38:679–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grush R (2000) Self, world and space: the meaning and mechanisms of ego- and allocentric spatial representation. Brain Mind 1:59–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halligan PW, Fink GR, Marshall JC, Vallar G (2003) Spatial cognition: evidence from visual neglect. Trends Cogn Sci 7:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson SC (2003) Space in language and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Logan GD (1995) Linguistic and conceptual control of visual selective attention. Cogn Psychol 28:103–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang JC, Minneman SL (1990) VideoDraw: A Video Interface for Collaborative Drawing. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI’90 conference on human factors in computing systems, (April 1–5), Seattle, Washington, pp 313–320, ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapie J, Terrier P, Perron L, Cellier JM (2006) Should remote collaborators be represented by avatars? A matter of common ground for collective medical decision-making. AI Soc 20:331–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vertegaal R (1999) The GAZE Groupware System: Mediating Joint Attention in Multiparty Communication and Collaboration. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI’99 conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Volcic R, Kappers AML, Koenderink JJ (2007) Haptic parallelity perception on the frontoparallel plane: An involvement of reference frames. Percept Psychophys 69:276–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am greatly indebted to my research supervisors Dr Anurika Vaish and Professor M.D. Tiwari at IIIT for their constant support. Part of this work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant managed through the Graduate School of the Centre of Excellence “Cognitive Interaction Technology”, University of Bielefeld, Germany to the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neha Khetrapal.

Additional information

This paper was written while the author was at Centre of Excellence "Cognitive Interaction Technology" and Faculty of Psychology & Sports Science, University of Bielefeld, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Khetrapal, N. Achieving common grounds in communication via interfaces: a role of spatial frames for reference. Poiesis Prax 7, 189–195 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0084-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0084-4

Keywords

Navigation