Words and maps: developmental changes in mental models of spatial information acquired from descriptions and depictions

Abstract

People acquire spatial information from many sources, including maps, verbal descriptions, and navigating in the environment. The different sources present spatial information in different ways. For example, maps can show many spatial relations simultaneously, but in a description, each spatial relation must be presented sequentially. The present research investigated how these source differences influence the mental models that children and adults form of the presented information. In Experiment 1, 8-year-olds, 10-year-olds and adults learned the layout of a six-room space either from verbal descriptions or from a map. They then constructed the configuration and pointed to target locations. Participants who learned from the map performed significantly better than those who learned from the description. Ten-year-olds performed nearly as well as adults did. The 8-year-olds' mental models differed substantially from the older children's and adults' mental models. The younger children retained the sequential information but did not integrate the relations into a survey-like cognitive map. Experiment 2 demonstrated that viewing the shape of the configuration, without seeing the map in full, could facilitate 8-year-olds' use of the verbal information and their ability to integrate the locations. The results demonstrate developmental differences in the mental representation of spatial information from descriptions. In addition, the results reveal that maps and other graphic representations can facilitate children's spatial thinking by helping them to transcend the sequential nature of language and direct experience.

It’s all about location, location, location: Children’s memory for the “where” of personally experienced events

“…In the present research, verbal comprehension, as measured by the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities, was not an important determinant of event memory, location memory, or the conjunction of event and location. Previous research has found differences in the preschool to early-school years in the integration of learned spatial descriptions into representations of a space (Uttal, Fisher, & Taylor, 2006) and systematic use of prepositions such as “by” to describe locations (Hund & Naroleski, 2008). These findings suggest that a fruitful direction for future research may be to conduct more fine-grained assessments of spatially-relevant language and test the contribution of such language to the ability to remember locations and the conjunction of events and locations, in particular.…”

Learning what children know about space from looking at their hands: The added value of gesture in spatial communication

“…Even by 8 years of age, children continue to have some difficulty in integrating relations. Uttal, Fisher, and Taylor (2006) found that 8-year-olds were less likely to integrate spatial relations learned through verbal descriptions than 10-year-olds and adults; some 8-year-olds constructed models of the space that preserved the order of the landmarks heard in the description but did not preserve the overall spatial configuration.…”

“…Recent studies have shown that, at least under some circumstances, children can form integrated survey-like representations of spaces (Davies & Uttal, 2007; Spelke, Gilmore, & McCarthy, 2011; Uttal, Fisher, et al, 2006; Uttal & Wellman, 1989). If children know the relations but it is not apparent to them how to communicate this information, we may see important changes in their communication if we encourage gesture as a tool for conveying relations.…”

“…We focused on these ages because, by age 8, children are able to form mental representations of space, although these representations sometimes differ from older children’s and adults’ representations; by age 10, most children are capable of forming mental representations of spaces that include information about the relations among locations, at least for simple spaces (Siegel & White, 1975; Uttal, Fisher, et al, 2006). Thus, by including these age groups, we were able to ask whether, and how, the communication of spatial relations develops in relation to participants’ mental representation of these relations.…”

Perspective, Instruction, and Cognitive Style in Spatial Representation of a Virtual Environment

“…Individual differences, such as age (Siegel & White, 1875;Uttal, Fisher, & Taylor, 2006), gender (Lawton, 1994Lawton & Kallai, 2002), spatial memory ability (Bosco, Longoni, & Vecchi, 2004), cognitive styles in spatial representation (Denis, Pazzaglia, Cornoldi, & Bertolo, 1999;Pazzaglia & De Beni, 2001;Nori & Giusberti, 2003;Bosco et al, 2004;Pazzaglia & De Beni, 2006) have been shown to influence cognitive maps. Denis et al (1999) gave verbal route directions for way-finding in Venice to participants varying in cognitive style related to spatial representation.…”