1,720,989 research outputs found
Spatial schemas and abstract thought
No full textHumans and other animals depend on their ability to perceive and represent spatial aspects of the world. We learn spatial schemas by observing the locations and movements of objects (including people) and the configuration of our environment. This book explores the role these spatial schemas play in abstract, nonspatial tasks. Evidence suggests that we adapt spatial schemas for three basic purposes in abstract cognition: to structure memory, to structure communication, and to structure reasoning.Are spatial schemas mere metaphors that help us to understand cognitive processes or are they actual internal mechanisms? Evidence for the latter suggests that the cognitive structures we develop to perceive, navigate, and remember space are the indispensable foundation of more abstract cognitive tasks. This book proposes the means by which spatial structures might be adapted for nonspatial purposes, and it considers alternatives to spatial coding as a basis for abstract thought.The book is organized into three parts: the representation and use of space, spatial schemas in cultural contexts, and the kinds of computational and neurological structures that might be involved in abstract thought. The contributors include cognitive psychologists, developmental psychologists, linguists, anthropologists, and computer scientists
Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning
No full textThree experiments investigated whether the similarity of relational structures influences the interpretation of spatial representations. Adults were shown diagrams of hand gestures paired with simple statements and asked to judge the meaning of new gestures. In Experiment 1 the gestures were paired with active declarative statements. In Experiment 2, the gestures were paired with conjunctive and disjunctive relations. Experiment 3 used statements similar to those used in Experiment 1, but eliminated the initial object-to-object mapping provided in Experiments 1 and 2. In all three experiments, most participants chose an interpretation that set up a parallel relational structure between the gesture and its meaning: spatial elements were paired with conceptual elements and spatial relations were paired with conceptual relations. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that similarity of relational structures influences spatial reasoning, and have implications for analogical reasoning, diagrammatic reasoning, and language processing
Inferencing from spatial information
No full textMaking inferences on the basis of spatial information, such as taking shortcuts, and reasoning with graphs and diagrams, is a commonality between very different tasks of spatial cognition. This paper discusses three processes of reasoning about space: integrating pairwise relations, integrating different spatial relations from different information types, and aligning relational structures. The final section of the paper poses the question whether these three processes are common to both small-scale and large-scale spatial reasoning, and if so, how those commonalities might inform our theories of cognitive architecture
Space as a Basis for Reasoning
No full textWe use space as a basis for reasoning whenever we use aspatial representation of a nonspatial concept to make decisions orinferences. From a psychological perspective, our tendency to create andreason fluidly from spatial models is somewhat surprising, becauseusing a spatial model to reason involves creating correspondencesbetween two semantically unrelated concepts: space, and something thatisnit space, whether that be time, performance, or the desirability of anew job. Our proficiency in using space as a basis for reasoning reliesour abilities to detect similarities in the structures of very differentconcepts. In this paper I discuss two types of similarities between spaceand nonspatial concepts and describe how those similarities influencereasoning from spatial representations
How similarity shapes diagrams
No full textAbstract. Most diagrams communicate effectively despite the fact that diagrams as a group have a minium of conventions and a high tolerance for novelty. This paper proposes that the diversity and felicity of diagrammatic representation is based on three kinds of similarity between semantic propositions and spatial representations that allow people to interpret diagrams consistently with a minimum of effort and training. Iconicity is similarity of physical appearance, polarity is similarity in the positive and negative structure of dimensions, and relational similarity aligns structures so that elements correspond to elements, relations correspond to relations, and so on. In diagrammatic reasoning detected similarities are used to create correspondences between the visual characteristics of a diagram and its semantic meaning, and those correspondences are in turn used to make inferences about unknown or underspecified meanings
- …
