Verbal shadowing and visual interference in spatial memory

Distortions in Spatial Mental Representation Affect Sketch Maps in Young Adults

Humans tend to misrepresent spatial information which leads to systematic errors due to distorted organizational processes regarding metric and positional judgments. This study is aimed at analyzing metric and positional distortions in cognitive maps by using external representations, namely sketch maps, in two experiments with young participants. In the first experiment, we use the sketching area of Northern Europe. In the second experiment, the University campus area was used. The first aim was to test the hypothesis that the presence of the sea between the triplet of landmarks generates an overestimation of the distances between them in the case of Northern Europe; and to test the hypothesis that the number of turns in a route influences the overestimation of the distance between landmarks in the case of the campus area. The second aim was to investigate alignment and rotation errors using the same maps. Concerning metric errors, the results showed the overestimation of distances with a geographical gap between the cities (the sea in the Northern European Area), and those with more turns between landmarks (the campus area). The results concerning rotations and alignments were in line with the previous research about positional errors. The present study extended findings on distortions in spatial mental representation as emerging from verbal judgments, to sketch maps: direct visuospatial external representations eluding the conversion into verbal coding of spatial information. The presence of distortions in cognitive maps could be considered the consequence of the encoding of spatial information.

Alignment in spatial memory: Encoding of reference frames or of relations?

A common assumption about spatial memory is that it is organized along one or more reference directions such that access to memory is easier along directions aligned with the reference direction(s). This assumption rests to no small part on frequently replicated alignment effects arising in judgment of relative direction. In this contribution, we report an experiment designed to investigate a possible alternative explanation of alignment effects. By contrasting performance in a judgment of relative direction task with performance in an ego perspective taking task, we tested to what extent alignment effects arise from encoding of relations in addition to or instead of from organization along reference directions. Experimental results suggest little if any contribution of relation encoding on alignment effects, thus lending further support to the assumption of reference directions in spatial memory. Data from both tasks yielded the same alignment effects and provided evidence for a single direction being encoded in memory. Moreover, our results shed new light on and raise questions concerning differential sensorimotor and cognitive influence on spatial memory use. While both influence memory use, systematic bias seems to arise solely from reference directions, along which memory is organized.

Can the Use of Seven Key Manipulations and Predicted Pattern Testing Bring More Clarity to Negative Priming Investigations?

Christie and Klein (2008) recommended using the 7 key conditions used by Neumann and DeSchepper (1991) and Stadler and Hogan (1996) to investigate the full range of effects produced by recently rejected distractors (negative priming) and recently attended targets (positive priming) in selective attention tasks. They suggested that incorporating all seven conditions should help to overcome the current muddle of possible explanations for positive and negative priming effects. Crucially, although the overall patterns of results reported by Neumann and DeSchepper and Stadler and Hogan were identical, some of the conditions in Stadler and Hogan’s experiment produced much larger effects, particularly in the attended repetition (positive priming) conditions, compared with those of Neumann and DeSchepper. Here we use statistical support provided by an analytic approach known as predicted pattern testing (Levin & Neumann, 1999) to argue that asymmetric transfer produced by participant expectancy effects could account for the magnitude of Stadler and Hogan’s positive priming outcomes, rather than the commonly accepted assumption made by Christie and Klein, and others, that prime-probe congruencies involving targets should affect performance (responses to probe targets) more than prime-probe congruencies involving distractors.

Effects of Language Background on Gaze Behavior: A Crosslinguistic Comparison Between Korean and German Speakers

Languages differ in how they categorize spatial relations: While German differentiates between containment (in) and support (auf) with distinct spatial words-(a) den Kuli IN die Kappe stecken ("put pen in cap"); (b) die Kappe AUF den Kuli stecken ("put cap on pen")-Korean uses a single spatial word (kkita) collapsing (a) and (b) into one semantic category, particularly when the spatial enclosure is tight-fit. Korean uses a different word (i.e., netha) for loose-fits (e.g., apple in bowl). We tested whether these differences influence the attention of the speaker. In a crosslinguistic study, we compared native German speakers with native Korean speakers. Participants rated the similarity of two successive video clips of several scenes where two objects were joined or nested (either in a tight or loose manner). The rating data show that Korean speakers base their rating of similarity more on tight- versus loose-fit, whereas German speakers base their rating more on containment versus support (in vs. auf). Throughout the experiment, we also measured the participants' eye movements. Korean speakers looked equally long at the moving Figure object and at the stationary Ground object, whereas German speakers were more biased to look at the Ground object. Additionally, Korean speakers also looked more at the region where the two objects touched than did German speakers. We discuss our data in the light of crosslinguistic semantics and the extent of their influence on spatial cognition and perception.

No advantage for remembering horizontal over vertical spatial locations learned from a single viewpoint

Previous behavioral and neurophysiological research has shown better memory for horizontal than for vertical locations. In these studies, participants navigated toward these locations. In the present study we investigated whether the orientation of the spatial plane per se was responsible for this difference. We thus had participants learn locations visually from a single perspective and retrieve them from multiple viewpoints. In three experiments, participants studied colored tags on a horizontally or vertically oriented board within a virtual room and recalled these locations with different layout orientations (Exp. 1) or from different room-based perspectives (Exps. 2 and 3). All experiments revealed evidence for equal recall performance in horizontal and vertical memory. In addition, the patterns for recall from different test orientations were rather similar. Consequently, our results suggest that memory is qualitatively similar for both vertical and horizontal two-dimensional locations, given that these locations are learned from a single viewpoint. Thus, prior differences in spatial memory may have originated from the structure of the space or the fact that participants navigated through it. Additionally, the strong performance advantages for perspective shifts (Exps. 2 and 3) relative to layout rotations (Exp. 1) suggest that configurational judgments are not only based on memory of the relations between target objects, but also encompass the relations between target objects and the surrounding room—for example, in the form of a memorized view.

Qualitative differences in memory for vista and environmental spaces are caused by opaque borders, not movement or successive presentation

Two classes of space define our everyday experience within our surrounding environment: vista spaces, such as rooms or streets which can be perceived from one vantage point, and environmental spaces, for example, buildings and towns which are grasped from multiple views acquired during locomotion. However, theories of spatial representations often treat both spaces as equal. The present experiments show that this assumption cannot be upheld. Participants learned exactly the same layout of objects either within a single room or spread across multiple corridors. By utilizing a pointing and a placement task we tested the acquired configurational memory. In Experiment 1 retrieving memory of the object layout acquired in environmental space was affected by the distance of the traveled path and the order in which the objects were learned. In contrast, memory retrieval of objects learned in vista space was not bound to distance and relied on different ordering schemes (e.g., along the layout structure). Furthermore, spatial memory of both spaces differed with respect to the employed reference frame orientation. Environmental space memory was organized along the learning experience rather than layout intrinsic structure. In Experiment 2 participants memorized the object layout presented within the vista space room of Experiment 1 while the learning procedure emulated environmental space learning (movement, successive object presentation). Neither factor rendered similar results as found in environmental space learning. This shows that memory differences between vista and environmental space originated mainly from the spatial compartmentalization which was unique to environmental space learning. Our results suggest that transferring conclusions from findings obtained in vista space to environmental spaces and vice versa should be made with caution.

Multiple Strategies for Spatial Integration of 2D Layouts within Working Memory

Prior results on the spatial integration of layouts within a room differed regarding the reference frame that participants used for integration. We asked whether these differences also occur when integrating 2D screen views and, if so, what the reasons for this might be. In four experiments we showed that integrating reference frames varied as a function of task familiarity combined with processing time, cues for spatial transformation, and information about action requirements paralleling results in the 3D case. Participants saw part of an object layout in screen 1, another part in screen 2, and reacted on the integrated layout in screen 3. Layout presentations between two screens coincided or differed in orientation. Aligning misaligned screens for integration is known to increase errors/latencies. The error/latency pattern was thus indicative of the reference frame used for integration. We showed that task familiarity combined with self-paced learning, visual updating, and knowing from where to act prioritized the integration within the reference frame of the initial presentation, which was updated later, and from where participants acted respectively. Participants also heavily relied on layout intrinsic frames. The results show how humans flexibly adjust their integration strategy to a wide variety of conditions.

How to Best Name a Place? Facilitation and Inhibition of Route Learning Due to Descriptive and Arbitrary Location Labels

Establishing verbal memory traces for non-verbal stimuli was reported to facilitate or inhibit memory for the non-verbal stimuli. We show that these effects are also observed in a domain not indicated before—wayfinding. Fifty-three participants followed a guided route in a virtual environment. They were asked to remember half of the intersections by relying on the visual impression only. At the other 50% of the intersections, participants additionally heard a place name, which they were asked to memorize. For testing, participants were teleported to the intersections and were asked to indicate the subsequent direction of the learned route. In Experiment 1, intersections' names were arbitrary (i.e., not related to the visual impression). Here, participants performed more accurately at unnamed intersections. In Experiment 2, intersections' names were descriptive and participants' route memory was more accurate at named intersections. Results have implications for naming places in a city and for wayfinding aids.