Object Orientation Affects Spatial Language Comprehension

Burigo, Michele; Sacchi, Simona

doi:10.1111/cogs.12041

Cited by 14 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Past research has focused on the production and comprehension of spatial terms (e.g., Burigo & Sacchi, 2013;Carlson & van Deman, 2008;Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1994;Carlson-Radvansky & Logan, 1997;Coventry & Garrod, 2004;Lipinski, Schneegans, Sandamirskaya, Spencer, & Sch€ oner, 2011;Logan, 1995Logan, , 1996Regier & Carlson, 2001). A critical representation related to conflict and selection in spatial term use is a spatial reference frame.…”

Section: Conflict and Selection In Spatial Term Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Schultheis¹,

Carlson

2015

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that multiple reference frames are available and compete for selection during the use of spatial terms such as "above." However, the mechanisms that underlie the selection process are poorly understood. In the current paper we present two experiments and a comparison of three computational models of selection to shed further light on the nature of reference frame selection. The three models are drawn from different areas of human cognition, and we assess whether they may be applied to a reference frame selection by examining their ability to account for both existing and new empirical data comprising acceptance rates, response times, and response time distributions. These three models are the competitive shunting model (Schultheis, ), the leaky competing accumulator (LCA) model (Usher & McClelland, ), and a lexical selection model (Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, ). Model simulations show that only the LCA model satisfactorily accounts for the empirical observations. The key properties of this model that seem to drive its success are its bounded linear activation function, its number and type of processing stages, and its use of decay. Uncovering these critical properties has important implications for our understanding not only of spatial term use, in particular, but also of conflict and selection in human cognition more generally.

show abstract

Section: Conflict and Selection In Spatial Term Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Schultheis¹,

Carlson

2015

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such configural cues include global features concerning the environment's geometry and symmetry (Shelton and McNamara, 2001;Tverksy, 1981), its salient axes (e.g., those formed by prominent streets, Werner & Schmidt, 1999), and the slope of its terrain (Nardi et al, 2012;Weisberg & Newcombe, 2014), among many more. Beyond such global configural cues, relevant information about how to interact with the world also comes from more local configural cues, such as the direction and orientation of objects in the environment (e.g., Burigo & Sacchi, 2013), the internal elongated axes of the objects (Quinlan & Humphreys, 1993;Sekuler & Swimmer, 2000), and the affordances of those objects (Gibson, 1979;Costantini et al, 2010). Importantly, as social animals, we also use cues about the location and orientation of others in space to guide our language use and actions (e.g., Galati et al, 2013;Özyürek, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking

Galati

Dale

Duran

2019

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do environmental cues and social perspectives influence perspective selection? Listeners responded to instructions (e.g., "Give me the folder on the right") from a simulated partner, selecting from two objects consistently aligned with themselves (egoaligned; Experiment 1a) or the speaker (other-aligned; Experiment1b). In Experiment 2, listeners selected from triangular 3-object configurations whose orientation varied (ego-, other-, or neither-aligned). When the configural cue was other-aligned (consistently or inconsistently: Experiments 1b and 2), listeners were more likely to be other-centric. Other-centric responders stabilized their strategy more quickly when the cue was otheraligned, but their mouse trajectories did not exhibit facilitation (Experiment 1b vs. 1a). In Experiment 2, other-centric responders showed sensitivity to the configural cue, making longer and more complex trajectories on neither-aligned configurations. That cue also influenced how listeners interpreted the front-back terms. Our findings suggest that configural cues can promote an other-centric strategy and its stabilization, influence response dynamics selectively, and impact the interpretation of spatial language.

show abstract

“…For example, the petrol canister data used in this work cannot be captured from the AVS model or any of its extensions, presumably because of the lack of an appropriate trajector representation (see also the discussion in Hörberg (2008)). Furthermore, Burigo and Sacchi (2013) showed that pure geometric properties of the trajector also a ect spatial language apprehension. Coventry et al (2010) conducted a study in which they tracked eye movements of people during the apprehension of spatial terms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Focus or Many? Modeling Attentional Distributions During Spatial Term Use

Kluth¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are humans able to split their attentional focus? This master's thesis tries to answer this question by proposing several modifications to the Attentional Vector Sum (AVS) model (Regier & Carlson, 2001). The AVS model is a computational cognitive model of spatial language use that assumes visual attention. Carlson, Regier, Lopez, and Corrigan (2006) have developed a modification to the AVS model that integrates effects of world knowledge (functionality of spatially related objects) into the AVS model. This modified model assumes that people are able to split their visual spatial attention. However, it is debated whether this assumption holds true (e.g., Jans, Peters, & De Weerd, 2010). Thus, this thesis investigates the assumption in the domain of spatial language use by proposing and assessing alternative model modifications that do not assume split attention. Based on available empirical data, the results favor a uni-focal distribution of attention over a multi-focal attentional distribution. At the same time, the results cast doubt on the proper modeling of functional aspects of spatial language use, as the AVS model (not considering functionality) is performing surprisingly well on most data sets. (See https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_6 for a condensed version of this work.)

show abstract

Object Orientation Affects Spatial Language Comprehension

Cited by 14 publications

References 53 publications

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking

One Focus or Many? Modeling Attentional Distributions During Spatial Term Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About