Untitled

I go right, north, and over: Processing spatial language.

“…The fact that people settle on one interpretation suggests differential spatial frame accessibility or use, even with multiple frame activation. Online processing measures, such as event-related potentials (ERPs) and negative priming, have helped to elucidate reference frame activation, selection, and use (Carlson, West, Taylor, & Herndon, 2002;Taylor, Faust, Sitnikova, Holcomb, & Naylor, 2001;Taylor, Naylor, Faust, & Holcomb, 1999). Using ERPs, Carlson et al (2002) identified separable processes of reference frame use associated with different ERP components.…”

“…Research has suggested a role for these semantic integration processes with spatial language. Taylor and colleagues (Taylor et al, 2001;Taylor, Naylor, Faust, et al, 1999) pitted relative and intrinsic frames for interpreting spatial terms front, back, left, and right and showed a larger N400 when the intrinsic reference frame was not used. Further, election and use of the intrinsic frame appears to happen quite early (Carlson et al, 2002).…”

Reference frame selection in dialog: priming or preference?

“…Attempts to define preferences for specific FORs have led to ambiguous results. The relative FOR, being perceptually available and avoiding the extra computational effort needed for mental rotation, has been considered predominant by some authors (Linde and Labov, 1975; Levelt, 1982, 1989) whereas other authors have claimed that the intrinsic FOR predominates (Miller and Johnson-Laird, 1976) or is at least preferred (Carlson-Radvansky and Irwin, 1993; Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky, 1996; Taylor et al, 1999). This disagreement and the potential for ambiguities has led to an extensive body of psycholinguistic investigations of which factors contribute to the selection and processing of spatial FOR, mostly using monolog studies.…”