The role of scene type and priming in the processing and selection of a spatial frame of reference

Johannsen, Katrin; Ruiter, Jan P. de

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00182

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, studies examining differences in reference frame preference across languages have been inconclusive (see Tenbrink, 2007 , 2009 for discussion), suggesting that discourse and task context effects can be a much stronger influencing factor than cross-linguistic variation, particularly within closely related cultural and linguistic settings (as in our case). Indeed, reference frame choice has been shown to be affected by a range of situational influences, including the embedding of the objects in more complex and real-world scenes ( Johannsen and De Ruiter, 2013a , b ), and the communicative context in which the speaker is situated ( Galati and Avraamides, 2013 ). In our case, the task was presented in slightly different ways – on a table top in Experiment 1, as opposed to a computer screen in Experiment 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky (1996) found that when the mail carrier was shown facing the mailbox, participants preferred to use in front of (intrinsic reference frame) compared with to the left of (relative reference frame) to describe the mail carrier’s position and vice versa when the mail carrier was facing away from the mailbox. The selection of a spatial reference frame is also influenced by previous discourse ( Watson et al, 2004 ; see also Schober, 1998 ; Johannsen and De Ruiter, 2013a , b ; Dobnik et al, 2014 ). For example, Watson et al (2004) found that participants were 10% more likely to use the intrinsic frame if they heard a confederate use that reference frame on the preceding trial, than when the confederate used a relative frame on the preceding trial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent is the choice of what to say driven by seemingly irrelevant cues in the visual world being described? Among such cues, how does prior description affect how we process spatial scenes? When people describe where objects are located their use of spatial language is often associated with a choice of reference frame. Two experiments employing between-participants designs (N = 490) examined the effects of visual cueing and previous description on reference frame choice as reflected in spatial prepositions (in front of, to the left of, etc.) to describe pictures of object pairs. Experiment 1 examined the effects of visual and linguistic cues on spatial description choice through movement of object(s) in spatial scenes, showing sizeable effects of visual cueing on reference frame choice. Experiment 2 monitored eye movements of participants following a linguistic example description, revealing two findings: eye movement "signatures" associated with distinct reference frames as expressed in language, and transfer of these eye movement patterns just prior to spatial description for different (later) picture descriptions. Both verbal description and visual cueing similarly influence language production choice through manipulation of visual attention, suggesting a unified theory of constraints affecting spatial language choice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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. The factors identified range from functional relations between objects (Carlson-Radvansky and Radvansky, 1996) to motion characteristics (Levelt, 1984), gravity (Friederici and Levelt, 1990), priming effects (Watson et al, 2004; Carlson and Van Deman, 2008; Johannsen and de Ruiter, 2013), scene type (Johannsen and de Ruiter, 2013), and properties of the object configuration such as the rotation of the reference object and the position of the located object (Ziegler et al, 2012). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reference frame selection in dialog: priming or preference?

Johannsen

Ruiter

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate effects of priming and preference on frame of reference (FOR) selection in dialog. In a first study, we determine FOR preferences for specific object configurations to establish a baseline. In a second study, we focus on the selection of the relative or the intrinsic FOR in dialog using the same stimuli and addressing the questions whether (a) interlocutors prime each other to use the same FOR consistently or (b) the preference for the intrinsic FOR predominates priming effects. Our results show effects of priming (more use of the relative FOR) and a decreased preference for the intrinsic FOR. However, as FOR selection did not have an effect on target trial accuracy, neither effect alone represents the key to successful communication in this domain. Rather, we found that successful communication depended on the adaptation of strategies between interlocutors: the more the interlocutors adapted to each other's strategies, the more successful they were.

show abstract

“…Crollen and Collignon (2012) review how visuallydeprived individuals develop representations of spatial frames of reference and propose that sighted people learn to recode spatial information to an external reference frame (i.e., independent of limb/body position) as opposed to the internal reference frame (i.e., dependent on limb/body position) preferred by those without vision. Johannsen and de Ruiter (2013) observed that people's reference frame selection during scene processing is affected by the realism of the scene, with people more likely to choose an egocentric frame of reference when the background is more realistic. They suggest that greater realism results in easier perceptual simulation and therefore a greater preference for egocentric processing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of body and environment in cognition

2014

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this Research Topic, we aimed to develop our understanding of cognition by considering the diverse and dynamic relationship between the language we use, our bodily perceptions, and our actions and interactions in the broader environment. We received twenty-six articles that take very different approaches to exploring the question of how our bodies and the environment influence cognition.Several papers examine how perceptual concepts are developed and accessed. Gainotti (2012) reviews evidence from cognitive neuropsychology and proposes that different types of concepts differentially rely on sensorimotor experience, with somatosensory and movement information playing a major role in artifact representations and visual and other perceptual information playing a major role in the representation of living things. Krause et al. (2013) find an interference effect between fingers and numbers in a numerosity comparison task and suggest that it emerges from an embodied representation of number based on a shared metric for symbolic and tactile numerosities. Since perceptual stimulation sometimes interferes with and sometimes facilitates other conceptual processing Connell and Lynott (2012), review recent findings and propose that these differences arise due to the attentional demands on modality-specific processing. Two groups use event-related potentials to examine how perceptual information is accessed in conceptual tasks. Hald et al. (2013) find evidence for modality-specific grounded representations when processing negated sentences, and demonstrate differential modulation of the N400 according to whether or not a true vs. false sentence involves modality switching. Louwerse and Hutchinson (2012) show that different tasks rely on linguistic vs. perceptual information to different extents, with activation in linguistic cortical regions preceding activation in perceptual cortical regions when both types of processing were associated with the task.As well as perceptual information, motor information relating to action concepts was also a central topic. In a review of behavioral and neuroimaging work on semantics across different domains (e.g., concrete/abstract words, numbers, and arithmetic), Hauk and Tschentscher (2013) argue that the specific function of sensorimotor areas in processing meaning remains unclear, and suggest that only by employing a combination of methods can causal underpinnings be deduced. However, in their review, Tomasino and Rumiati (2013) contend that the strategy a participant employs in a task is more important than the nature of the stimulus in determining whether motor simulations will be activated and support the view that the motor system is implicated in-but not necessary to-semantic processing. Locatelli et al. (2012) provide evidence for the role of motor experience in motor semantics by demonstrating that action experience in the form of manual dexterity training facilitated subsequent performance in judging sentence-picture pairs that were related to the previously-learned actions. M...

show abstract

The role of scene type and priming in the processing and selection of a spatial frame of reference

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language

Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language

Reference frame selection in dialog: priming or preference?

The role of body and environment in cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About