Mechanisms of Reference Frame Selection in Spatial Term Use: Computational and Empirical Studies

Previous studies have shown that multiple reference frames are available and compete for selection during the use of spatial terms such as "above." However, the mechanisms that underlie the selection process are poorly understood. In the current paper we present two experiments and a comparison of three computational models of selection to shed further light on the nature of reference frame selection. The three models are drawn from different areas of human cognition, and we assess whether they may be applied to a reference frame selection by examining their ability to account for both existing and new empirical data comprising acceptance rates, response times, and response time distributions. These three models are the competitive shunting model (Schultheis, ), the leaky competing accumulator (LCA) model (Usher & McClelland, ), and a lexical selection model (Howard, Nickels, Coltheart, & Cole-Virtue, ). Model simulations show that only the LCA model satisfactorily accounts for the empirical observations. The key properties of this model that seem to drive its success are its bounded linear activation function, its number and type of processing stages, and its use of decay. Uncovering these critical properties has important implications for our understanding not only of spatial term use, in particular, but also of conflict and selection in human cognition more generally.

[1]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Dynamic Integration of Reward and Stimulus Information in Perceptual Decision-Making , 2011, PloS one.

[2]  Weimin Mou,et al.  Allocentric and egocentric updating of spatial memories. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Grounding spatial language in perception: an empirical and computational investigation. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  Daniel Herron,et al.  A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. , 2004, Journal of memory and language.

[5]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  Inhibition in Superior Colliculus Neurons in a Brightness Discrimination Task? , 2011, Neural Computation.

[6]  Gary M. Oppenheim,et al.  The dark side of incremental learning: A model of cumulative semantic interference during lexical access in speech production , 2010, Cognition.

[7]  Sarah A. Helseth,et al.  Flexible visual processing of spatial relationships , 2012, Cognition.

[8]  Marie T Banich,et al.  Neural inhibition enables selection during language processing , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Niels Taatgen,et al.  RACE/A: An Architectural Account of the Interactions Between Learning, Task Control, and Retrieval Dynamics , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Marius Usher,et al.  Testing Multi-Alternative Decision Models with Non-Stationary Evidence , 2011, Front. Neurosci..

[11]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Inhibition within a reference frame during the interpretation of spatial language , 2008, Cognition.

[12]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  The cumulative semantic cost does not reflect lexical selection by competition. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[13]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  A set of 150 pictures with morphologically complex English compound names: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, image agreement, and visual complexity , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[14]  Yuhong V. Jiang,et al.  Inhibition Accompanies Reference-Frame Selection , 1998 .

[15]  G. Schöner,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning , Memory , and Cognition A Neurobehavioral Model of Flexible Spatial Language Behaviors , 2011 .

[16]  D. Chambers,et al.  Neither pictures nor propositions: what can we learn from a mental image? , 1991, Canadian journal of psychology.

[17]  E. Wagenmakers A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  Simona Sacchi,et al.  Object Orientation Affects Spatial Language Comprehension , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[20]  Wulfram Gerstner,et al.  Paradoxical Evidence Integration in Rapid Decision Processes , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[21]  Pia Knoeferle,et al.  Visual attention during spatial language comprehension: Reference alone isn't enough , 2011, CogSci.

[22]  Jonathan Grainger,et al.  A funny thing happened on the way to articulation: N400 attenuation despite behavioral interference in picture naming , 2012, Cognition.

[23]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Visual mental images can be ambiguous: insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities , 2002, Cognition.

[24]  Ping Li,et al.  Timed Picture Naming Norms for Mandarin Chinese , 2011, PloS one.

[25]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Improvements on Cross-Validation: The 632+ Bootstrap Method , 1997 .

[26]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  Semantic interference in a delayed naming task: evidence for the response exclusion hypothesis. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  J. Stroop Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[28]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Neural correlates of spatial term use. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  D. Raab DIVISION OF PSYCHOLOGY: STATISTICAL FACILITATION OF SIMPLE REACTION TIMES* , 1962 .

[30]  Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky,et al.  The Influence of Reference Frame Selection on Spatial Template Construction , 1997 .

[31]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  S. Levinson Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence , 1996 .

[33]  W. Newsome,et al.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[34]  M. May,et al.  Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[35]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  On the process of comparing sentences against pictures , 1972 .

[36]  Richard P. Heitz,et al.  Neurally constrained modeling of perceptual decision making. , 2010, Psychological review.

[37]  Rasha Abdel Rahman,et al.  Electrophysiological Chronometry of Semantic Context Effects in Language Production , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  Takashi Ueda,et al.  Japanese normative set of 359 pictures , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[39]  G. Logan Linguistic and Conceptual Control of Visual Spatial Attention , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[40]  G. Logan,et al.  Inhibitory control in mind and brain: an interactive race model of countermanding saccades. , 2007, Psychological review.

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

[42]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Reference Frame Activation during Spatial Term Assignment , 1994 .

[43]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  A Model of Interval Timing by Neural Integration , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[44]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  15. Top-down control of reference frame alignment in directing attention from cue to target , 1996 .

[45]  E. Flekkøy,et al.  Hybrid computations with flux exchange , 2004, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[46]  Anil Bollimunta,et al.  Local computation of decision-relevant net sensory evidence in parietal cortex. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[47]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Selecting a reference frame , 1999, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[48]  G. Logan On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[49]  Neal Madras Lectures on Monte Carlo Methods , 2002 .

[50]  B Suresh Krishna,et al.  Surround Suppression Sharpens the Priority Map in the Lateral Intraparietal Area , 2022 .

[51]  Michael E J Masson,et al.  A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[52]  Frank Oppermann,et al.  Is there semantic interference in delayed naming? , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[53]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Frames of reference in vision and language: Where is above? , 1993, Cognition.

[54]  A. Buchner,et al.  Negative Priming as a Memory Phenomenon , 2007 .

[55]  Marius Usher,et al.  Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[56]  Laura A. Carlson,et al.  Encoding direction when interpreting proximal terms , 2007 .

[57]  Maria V. Sanchez-Vives,et al.  Electrophysiological classes of cat primary visual cortical neurons in vivo as revealed by quantitative analyses. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[58]  Rafal Bogacz,et al.  Initiation and termination of integration in a decision process , 2010, Neural Networks.

[59]  S. Tipper Does Negative Priming Reflect Inhibitory Mechanisms? A Review and Integration of Conflicting Views , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[60]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[61]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Cumulative semantic inhibition in picture naming: experimental and computational studies , 2006, Cognition.

[62]  P. E. Hallett,et al.  Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions , 1978, Vision Research.

[63]  L. Braine,et al.  A new slant on orientation perception. , 1978 .

[64]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks , 2008, Neural Computation.

[65]  I. J. Myung,et al.  When a good fit can be bad , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[66]  Herbert Schriefers,et al.  Semantic interference in immediate and delayed naming and reading: Attention and task decisions , 2011 .

[67]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[68]  Han L J van der Maas,et al.  Optimal decision making in neural inhibition models. , 2012, Psychological review.

[69]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[70]  M. Jeanne Sholl,et al.  The Role of a Self-Reference System in Spatial Navigation , 2001, COSIT.

[71]  A. Voss,et al.  Diffusion models in experimental psychology: a practical introduction. , 2013, Experimental psychology.

[72]  Marius Usher,et al.  Disentangling decision models: from independence to competition. , 2013, Psychological review.

[73]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  The spatial frame of reference in object naming and discrimination of left-right reflections , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[74]  M. Peterson,et al.  Mental images can be ambiguous: Reconstruals and reference-frame reversals , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[75]  Patrick Bonin,et al.  A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[76]  J G Snodgrass,et al.  Picture naming by young children: norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1997, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[77]  Holger Schultheis,et al.  Comparing Model Comparison Methods , 2013, CogSci.