Attentional Distribution and Spatial Language

Whether visual spatial attention can be split to several discontinuous locations concurrently is still an open and intensely debated question. We address this question in the domain of spatial language use by comparing two existing and three newly proposed computational models. All models are assessed regarding their ability to account for human acceptability ratings for how well a given spatial term describes the spatial arrangement of two functionally related objects. One of the existing models assumes that taking the functional relations into account involves split attention. All new models incorporate functional relations without assuming split attention. Our simulations suggest that not assuming split attention is more appropriate for taking the functional relations into account than assuming split attention. At the same time, the simulations raise doubt as to whether any of the models appropriately captures the impact of functional relations on spatial language use.

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

[2]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.

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

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

[5]  William Lopez,et al.  Attention Unites Form and Function in Spatial Language , 2006, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[6]  G. Logan,et al.  Attention and spatial language , 2005 .

[7]  S. Levinson,et al.  LANGUAGE AND SPACE , 1996 .

[8]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Allocation of attention in the visual field. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

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

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

[13]  Thomas Hörberg Influences of Form and Function on Spatial Relations : Establishing functional and geometric influences on projective prepositions in Swedish , 2006 .

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

[15]  P. De Weerd,et al.  Visual spatial attention to multiple locations at once: the jury is still out. , 2010, Psychological review.

[16]  Thomas Hörberg,et al.  Influences of Form and Function on the Acceptability of Projective Prepositions in Swedish , 2008, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[17]  Martin Eimer,et al.  Spatial Attention Can Be Allocated Rapidly and in Parallel to New Visual Objects , 2014, Current Biology.

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

[19]  R. Klein,et al.  Splitting versus sharing focal attention: comment on Castiello and Umiltà (1992). , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[21]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Neurobiology of Attention , 2005 .

[22]  Stephen Wee Hun Lim,et al.  Media multitasking predicts unitary versus splitting visual focal attention , 2013 .

[23]  N. Metropolis,et al.  Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines , 1953, Resonance.