The mental representation of spatial descriptions

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the mental representation of spatial descriptions. In Experi· ment 1, the subjects classified a series of diagrams, each presented after a spatial description, as either consistent or inconsistent with the description. They were then given an unexpected recognition test of their memory for the descriptions. The subjects remembered the meanings of determinate descriptions very much better than those of grossly indeterminate descriptions; their memory for a description was not reliably affected by whether or not the diagram had been consistent with it. Experiment 2 extended these findings and showed that, although the semantic implications of a determinate description are better remembered than are those of an indeterminate description, the verbatim details of an indeterminate description are easier to recall than are those of a determinate description. The results are taken to imply the existence of two different sorts of encoding: propositional representations that are relatively hard to remember but correspond closely to the sentences in the description, and mental models that are relatively easy to remember but are analogous to spatial arrays and accordingly poor in linguistic detail.

Neural correlates of numbers and mathematical terms

“…One explanation of these results lies in the neural basis of mental images of geometric figures. Previous studies have shown that words referring to spatial representations can elicit the processing of spatial figures (e.g., Hayward and Tarr, 1995;Mani and Johnson-Laird, 1982) and that spatial processing is subserved by the parietal cortex (e.g., Hilgetag et al, 2001), especially the inferior parietal lobule (e.g., Alivisatos and Petrides, 1997;Carpenter et al, 1999). Geometric terms as well as numbers also had greater activation than algebraic terms and tool words at the posterior superior parietal lobe as shown in the ROI analysis based on Dehaene et al's three parietal circuit model.…”

Three Turtles in Danger: Spontaneous Construction of Causally Relevant Spatial Situation Models.

“…Furthermore, the structure of spatial descriptions affects the construction. In studies of spatial mental models, descriptions were easier to transform into mental models when they were determinate (Baguley & Payne, 2000;Mani & Johnson-Laird, 1982), continuous (Denis & Cocude, 1992;Ehrlich & Johnson-Laird, 1982;Oakhill & Johnson-Laird, 1984), and condensed (Zwaan & van Oostendorp, 1994).…”

Properties of cognitive maps constructed from texts

“…If subjects read a text accompanied by a map, they can inspect the map to encode the spatial relations between objects directly, eliminating the need to make spatial inferences. Second, a text does not usually give exact metric information about the location of landmarks and is thus indeterminate, although, interestingly, readers seem to use default values to infer locations of objects when exact distance information is not given (Mani & Johnson-Laird, 1982). A map is determinate in that each landmark is depicted in a specific location.…”

“…Cognitive psychologists and human geographers have been interested in studying the nature of the representations that people construct from these different experiences. One line of research has shown that people construct "mental models" from text, which are representations of the objects or situations described in a text (Byrne & Johnson-Laird, 1989;Johnson-Laird, 1983;Mani & Johnson-Laird, 1982) and not just "text-based" representations of the propositional content of the text (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). In addition to representing the relations between landmarks that were explicitly described in the text, mental models of spatial environments allow inferences about all possible relations between landmarks (Kulhavy, Schwartz, & Shaha, 1983;Perrig & Kintsch, 1985;Taylor & Tversky, 1992a, 1992b.…”