[ZirconCode]

  An interesting phenomenon in spatial thinking is that scalemakes a big
  difference. We can think about little objects in our hands, orwe can think
  of bigger human-sized structures that we scan, or we can think of spatial
  structures that encompass us and that we move around in. We tend to
  think more effectively with spatial imagery on a larger scale: it’s as if our
  brains take larger things more seriously and can devote more resources to them.

Really? I prefer imagining things in front of me, they become more manageable at a scale similar to a paper or me, rather than my house. It just seems more natural, does anyone have any insights on this?

[fdej]

The brain has dedicated subsystems for different aspects of spatial and visual understanding.

Certain groups of cells (place cells, grid cells) are known to be involved specifically in the ability to track one's own location and movement within the external world. This ability is likely a very old and important evolutionary invention in the development of higher animals, thus very sophisticated and well integrated with other functions, particularly memory. Think of the method of loci, known already in Ancient Rome and Greece, or indeed how quickly one learns to navigate a new city (or a video game level, say). This probably explains the phenomenon the author describes.

That said, the relative importance of the various spatial-visual subsystems of the brain probably depends heavily on the task, and perhaps also varies between individuals.