Effects of Differences in Vision upon Drivers’ Spatial Cognition:

Focus on the Subjective and Objective Viewpoints
  • Katsuhiro TeranishiEmail author
  • Tomonori Ohtsubo
  • Seishi Nakamura
  • Yoshiaki Matsuba
  • Miwa Nakanishi
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 827)


To support spatial cognition by drivers, it is becoming common for cameras and monitors to be attached to automobiles to enable drivers to see perspectives (objective viewpoints) besides their own field of vision (subjective viewpoint). Previous studies have suggested that the difference between the subjective and objective viewpoints influences drivers’ spatial cognition of their automobiles; however, the specific impacts on the human cognitive process of recognizing space, and on driving performance, have yet to be revealed.

Thus, this study was designed to experimentally assess the role of subjective and objective viewpoints in the cognitive process of driving and the level of driving performance.

The following results were obtained: (1) driving behavior with a subjective viewpoint tends to be more careful, as demonstrated by the rate of collision with dynamic objects. It was shown that a high cognitive load was applied in this case, but that subjective fatigue was small. It was thought that the subjective viewpoint makes a sense of ownership occur more readily than the objective viewpoint, so drivers tried to avoid collision by unconsciously recognizing their cars as part of themselves. (2) Driving with an objective viewpoint tended to be smoother, as evidenced by the frequency of collision with a wall. In addition, the cognitive load was also low.


Subjective viewpoint Objective viewpoint Spatial recognition 


  1. 1.
    Shimizu S et al (2014) Development of wraparound view system for vehicles. Inst Image Inf Telev Eng 68(1):J24–J29Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ono T et al (2015) Mechanism of emotion and intelligent information processing. High Brain Funct Res 25(2):116–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murai T (2006) Intracerebral mechanism of emotional cognition and social behavior and its obstacles. Jpn J Cogn Neurosci 8(1):56–60Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paulesu E et al (1993) The neural correlates of the verbal component of working memory. Nature 362:342–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leby R et al (2006) Apathy and the functional anatomy of the prefrontal cortex–basal ganglia circuits. Cereb Cortex 16(7):916–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ueda S (2011) Mechanisms of extended body phenomena: the different between passive and active inputs, and relation to mirror system. J Grad Sch Humanit Sci 14:217–226Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preston C et al (2015) Owning the body in the mirror: the effect of visual perspective and mirror view on the full-body illusion. Sci Rep 5:18345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maselli A et al (2013) The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Front Hum Neurosci 7(83):1–15Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durgin F et al (2007) Rubber hands feel the touch of light. Psychol Sci 18(2):152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whiteley L et al (2007) Visual processing and the bodily self. Acta Psychlogia 127:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuhiro Teranishi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tomonori Ohtsubo
    • 2
  • Seishi Nakamura
    • 2
  • Yoshiaki Matsuba
    • 2
  • Miwa Nakanishi
    • 1
  1. 1.Keio UniversityYokohamaJapan
  2. 2.Mazda Motor CorporationHiroshimaJapan

Personalised recommendations