Isolated processing of geometric shapes and their corresponding shape words: Evidence from a delayed match-to-sample task.

Some theorists propose a domain-specific cognitive system dedicated to processing geometric information, but existence of this system remains debatable because of challenges in isolating geometric from linguistic and semantic processing. Recently, Sturz, Edwards, and Boyer (2014) developed a delayed match-to-sample task that presented a sample of a shape, shape word, or bidimensional stimulus composed of a shape and shape word. After a delay, participants identified the sample shape or the sample word by selecting between 2 shapes or 2 shape words. An asymmetrical pattern of interference emerged such that increased response times (RTs) and errors occurred in matching shape targets but not word targets. This was interpreted as shape words activating a semantic and spatial representation of shapes, but shapes only activating a spatial representation. The present experiments attempted to replicate and extend these results by manipulating figure-ground relations to contrast the original condition with an alternative to address an explanation based upon sample shape saliency (Experiment 1), by confirming the effectiveness of the saliency manipulation (Experiment 2), and by explicitly testing the assumption that shapes did not activate a semantic representation by reversing the sample-to-target matching criteria (Experiment 3). Experiment 1 replicated the asymmetrical pattern of results for both conditions, and Experiment 2 confirmed the saliency manipulation, which together undermine a pure saliency explanation. Experiment 3 produced a symmetrical pattern of results and suggests that the reversed matching criteria forced shapes to be processed in both a spatial and semantic fashion. These results provide support for a cognitive system dedicated to processing geometric information isolated from linguistic and semantic processing. (PsycINFO Database Record

[1]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Sources of Flexibility in Human Cognition: Dual-Task Studies of Space and Language , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  E. Spelke,et al.  Core Knowledge of Geometry in an Amazonian Indigene Group , 2006, Science.

[3]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Mapping the mind: Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization , 1994 .

[4]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Modularity and cognition , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  D. Buss,et al.  Evolutionary psychology. Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. , 2010, The American psychologist.

[7]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  The stroop task : the «Gold Standard» of attentional measures , 1992 .

[8]  K. Cheng.  A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation , 1986, Cognition.

[9]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Is there a geometric module for spatial orientation? squaring theory and evidence , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  C. Gallistel.  The organization of learning , 1990 .

[11]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Is language necessary for human spatial reorientation? Reconsidering evidence from dual task paradigms , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[12]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  A modular geometric mechanism for reorientation in children , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science , 1994, Cognition.

[14]  Ty W. Boyer,et al.  Asymmetrical Interference Effects between Two-Dimensional Geometric Shapes and Their Corresponding Shape Words , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  L. Cosmides,et al.  Mapping the mind: Origins of domain specificity: The evolution of functional organization , 1994 .

[16]  Ty W. Boyer,et al.  Stroop interference in a delayed match-to-sample task: evidence for semantic competition , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[17]  C. Weiller,et al.  “Are there lexicons?” A study of lexical and semantic processing in word-meaning deafness suggests “yes” , 2012, Cortex.

[18]  Ron Borowsky,et al.  Parallel distributed processing and lexical-semantic effects in visual word recognition: are a few stages necessary? , 2006, Psychological review.

[19]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Beyond Core Knowledge: Natural Geometry , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[20]  John Tooby,et al.  Evolutionary psychology and the brain , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[21]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Two systems of spatial representation underlying navigation , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  H. Barrett,et al.  Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. , 2006, Psychological review.

[23]  J. Fodor.  Précis of The Modularity of Mind , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  A geometric process for spatial reorientation in young children , 1994, Nature.

[25]  Ken Cheng,et al.  25 years of research on the use of geometry in spatial reorientation: a current theoretical perspective , 2013, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[26]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .