Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks

A common way to describe the location of an object is to spatially relate it to a nearby object. For such descriptions, the object being described is referred to as the located object; the object to which it is spatially related is referred to as the reference object. Typically, however, there are many nearby objects (distractors), resulting in the need for selection. We report three experiments that examine the extent to which a distractor in the display is processed during the selection of a reference object. Using acceptability ratings and production measures, we show that the presence and the placement of a distractor have a significant impact on the assessment of the spatial relation between the located and reference objects; there is also evidence that the properties of the distractor are processed, but only under limited conditions. One implication is that the dimension that is most relevant to reference object selection is its spatial relation to the located object, rather than its salience with respect to other objects in the display.

[1]  D R Olson,et al.  Language and thought: aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. , 1970, Psychological review.

[2]  H. H. Clark.  SPACE, TIME, SEMANTICS, AND THE CHILD , 1973 .

[3]  G. Miller,et al.  Language and Perception , 1976 .

[4]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  How Language Structures Space , 1983 .

[5]  B. Tversky,et al.  Objects, parts, and categories. , 1984 .

[6]  E. M. Segal,et al.  Reference and comprehension: A topic-comment analysis of sentence-picture verification , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Annette Herskovits,et al.  Language and spatial cognition , 1986 .

[8]  H L Pick,et al.  Children's use of frames of reference in communication of spatial location. , 1990, Child development.

[9]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts , 1995, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[11]  J. Plumert,et al.  The Early Development of Children's Communication about Nested Spatial Relations , 1995 .

[12]  M. Tarr,et al.  Spatial language and spatial representation , 1995, Cognition.

[13]  Jodie M. Plumert,et al.  The Content and Organization of Communication about Object Locations , 1995 .

[14]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  The Influence of Functional Relations on Spatial Term Selection , 1996 .

[15]  G D Logan,et al.  Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[17]  B. Tversky,et al.  Perspective in Spatial Descriptions , 1996 .

[18]  Eva Stopp,et al.  Time-dependent generation of minimal sets of spatial descriptions , 1998 .

[19]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  “What” Effects on “Where”: Functional Influences on Spatial Relations , 1999 .

[21]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  Functional influences on orienting a reference frame , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Using spatial terms to select an object , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[23]  J. Plumert,et al.  Biases in young children's communication about spatial relations: containment versus proximity. , 2001, Child development.

[24]  Doris M. Dehn,et al.  How Nouns and Prepositions Fit Together: An Exploration of the Semantics of Locative Sentences , 2002 .

[25]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Grounding language in action , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[26]  Cindy M. Bukach,et al.  Gesturing and Naming , 2003, Psychological science.

[27]  Rolf A. Zwaan.  The Immersed Experiencer: Toward An Embodied Theory Of Language Comprehension , 2003 .

[28]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Descriptions of Simple Spatial Scenes in English and Japanese , 2003, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[29]  Kenny R. Coventry,et al.  Seeing, saying and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions , 2004 .

[30]  W. Prinz,et al.  Action comprehension: deriving spatial and functional relations. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns , 2005 .

[32]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Functional Features in Language and Space - Insights from Perception, Categorization, and Development , 2005, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[33]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Form and function , 1996, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[34]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Jodie M Plumert,et al.  What counts as by? Young children's use of relative distance to judge nearbyness. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[36]  Annette Herskovits.  Language and Spatial Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Prepositions in English , 2009 .