Determinants of spatial priming in environmental memory

Sherman, Richard C.; Lim, Kam Ming

doi:10.3758/bf03211152

Cited by 23 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The subjects were given a recognition test in which they had to discriminate the names of real buildings on their campus from fake names; the consistent result has been that no spatial priming occurs. This result also can be obtained when subjects learn an artificial spatial layout in an experimental setting if spatially contiguous objects are never experienced close together in time (Clayton & Habibi, 1991;McNamara et al, 1992;Sherman & Lim, 1991). If we assume that association in memory leads to priming in recognition, then these results indicate that associations did not exist between memories of neighboring buildings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 53%

“…It is possible that the subjects created nonspatial associations between city names at the time of learning, and that these nonspatial associations mediated the priming effects (see, e.g., Clayton & Habibi, 1991;McNamara, Halpin, & Hardy, 1992;Sherman & Lim, 1991). This problem was addressed in Experiment 3 by implementing map learning on a computer.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been known for some time that spatial priming occurs in a recognition test when subjects' memories of an experimentally learned layout are tested, but that spatial priming does not occur in recognition when subjects' memories of their campus are tested; spatial priming does not seem to occur in naturally acquired spatial memories unless the task requires a spatial decision of some kind (e.g., Clayton & Chattin, 1989;McNamara, Altarriba, Bendele, Johnson, & Clayton, 1989). Sherman and Lim (1991) investigated the cause of this interaction, and showed that the pattern that we had obtained for naturally learned spatial layouts-spatial priming in location judgmentsbut not in item recognition-could be obtained for an experimentally learned layout if spatially proximal 10-cations were never experienced close together in time (see also McNamara et al, 1992). Sherman and Lim speculated that spatial and temporal contiguity are naturally uncoupled when people learn a campus because they often learn the spatial layout incidentally, using routes that do not force them to experience neighboring buildings close together in·time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We contend that this representation is spatial. Importantly, spatial priming occurs in location judgments even when spatially contiguous objects are not experienced close together in time (McNamara et al, 1992;Sherman & Lim, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Experiments 1 and 3, the subjects learned the locations of cities on fictitious road maps and then learned facts about the cities; in Experiments 2,4, and 5, they learned facts about buildings on their campus, and consequently, the spatial layout was learned naturally, prior to the experiment. Furthermore, in one of the map-learning experiments, the subjects studied.maps drawn on paper; in the other, map and fact learning were controlled by a computer so that spatially contiguous cities always appeared far apart in the acquisition order (Clayton & Habibi, 1991;Sherman & Lim, 1991). Finally, in the location-judgment task used in Experiments 1 and 2, the subjects saw a series of fact predicates and city or building names, and had to make a decision on each item, including fact predicates; in the other three experiments, a trial in the location-judgment task consisted of the presentation of a fact (the prime) for a short period of time, followed by a city or a building name (the target), and the subjects' task was to respond to the target only.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The representation and integration in memory of spatial and nonspatial information

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments investigated whether people could integrate nonspatial information about an object with their knowledge of the object's location in space. In Experiments 1 and 3, subjects learned the locations of cities on a fictitious road map; in Experiments 2, 4, and 5, subjects were already familiar with the locations of buildings on a campus. The subjects then learned facts about the cities on the maps or the buildings on the campus. The question of interest was whether or not these nonspatial facts would be integrated in memory with the spatial knowledge. After learning the facts, subjects were given a location-judgment test in which they had to decide whether an object was in one region of the space or another. Knowledge integration was assessed by comparing levels of performance in two conditions: (a) when a city or a building name was primed by a fact about a neighboring city or building, and (b) when a city or a building name was primed by a fact about a distant city or building. Results showed that responses in Condition a were faster or more accurate, or both faster and more accurate, than responses in Condition b. These results indicate that the spatial and nonspatial information were encoded in a common memory representation.When people learn the locations of objects in an environment, they typically acquire nonspatial information about the objects. For example, as students learn the locations of buildings on a campus, they also may learn which departments are housed in which buildings, the relative ages of the buildings, and whether or not a building's architectural style is pleasing. Indeed, as this example suggests, our spatial experiences with objects in an environment are often determined by both nonspatial and spatial properties of the objects.The goal of the research described in this paper was to determine whether people could integrate nonspatial information about an object with their knowledge of the object's location in space. Specifically, participants in these experiments first learned a spatial layout, either a map or a real college campus, and then learned nonspatial verbal facts about cities on the map or buildings on the campus (e.g., "The city Sedona is noted for computer manufacturing" or "Alumni Hall is named for alumni who died in World War I"). Memories of maps and of natural environments are known to support diverse spatial behaviors, including image scanning (e.g

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%