Spatial Mental Models: The Interaction of Presentation Format, Task Requirements and Availability of Working Memory Components

Abstract

Two experiments investigate how people create spatial mental models (SMMs) as a function of presentation format. Spatial representations following a route within a virtual environment (visual) and an auditory description (verbal) were compared. Moreover, a dual-task procedure was adopted to depict the role of working memory (WM) components in such a task. Two testing formats were examined in both experiments: sentence verification (verbal) and sketch map (visual) tasks. This study shows that both presentations lead to adequate spatial representation. Nonetheless, SMMs are not presentation free. They are built by virtual presentation with a contribution of visuo-spatial WM. An involvement of verbal WM emerged while encoding spatial information from both verbal and virtual presentation. Congruency between presentation and testing formats slightly reduces the gap between verbal and virtual presentation. SMMs appear to be affected by the interaction of presentation and testing format as well as by the WM availability

Landmark and route knowledge in children’s spatial representation of a virtual environment

“…In this respect, as shown below, the way in which we study representations can determine what we can learn about them. Such differences between verbal and non-verbal knowledge have been indeed observed in adults (see e.g., Gras et al, 2013 ; Picucci et al, 2013 ). They should also be observed in children whose visuo-spatial and verbal abilities are developing at the same time.…”

Path Learning in Individuals With Down Syndrome: The Floor Matrix Task and the Role of Individual Visuo-Spatial Measures

“…Since the way in which spatial information is presented can influence our mental representation of it (e.g., Picucci et al, 2013), two path learning conditions were presented: one involved learning from observation (Observation condition), in which participants watched a person move through a sequence of squares (as in Piccardi et al, 2014); in the other participants learned from a map (Map condition), showing the cells in the grid involved in the sequence of steps. This solution was chosen based on the evidence that children aged 3-5 years understand the representative function of maps in showing a correspondence with a larger space (e.g., Frick and Newcombe, 2012), although they have trouble with handling it flexibly (rotating it, for example; Vosmik and Presson, 2004).…”

Memory for familiar locations: The impact of age, education and cognitive efficiency on two neuropsychological allocentric tasks

“…Human beings learn real-life environments by sensing and moving through the environment: this results in first-hand environmental experiences or internal knowledge (Costa & Bonetti, 2018; Montello, 2009). Alternatively, they can acquire information via symbolic sources, through interaction with visual and verbal artifacts (external knowledge), such as paper/digital maps or verbal descriptions of environments (Bosco, Longoni, & Vecchi, 2004; Meilinger, Frankenstein, & Bülthoff, 2013; Montello & Freundschuh, 1995; Picucci, Gyselinck, Piolino, Nicolas, & Bosco, 2013; van Asselen, Fritschy, & Postma, 2006).…”