Abstract
Two experiments examined whether spatial information judged from cognitive maps contains the functional euclidean properties of real maps. In Experiment 1, the six directions between sets of threetriad locations in a town were judged from memory. The angle formed by the two judged directions from a location to the other two locations in a triad was derived. The three derived angles of a triad were then summed. The derived angles were found to be biased toward 90 deg. The sum of the three derived angles of a triad also exceeded 180 deg, which violates the euclidean properties of real maps. In Experiment 2, subjects judged the direction between pairs of American cities in both directions. The judged directions were found to be consistently nonreversible, which is contrary to the properties of euclidean geometry. The study suggests that information judged from cognitive maps can contain internally inconsistent spatial properties, and the results are discussed in terms of current theories of spatial representation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Byrne, R. Memory for urban geography.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1979,31, 147–154.
Habt, R. A., &Moore, G. T. The development of spatial cognition: A review. In R. M. Downs & D. Stca (Eds.),Image and environment. Chicago: Aldine, 1973.
Hintzman, D. L., O’dell, C. S., &Arndt, D. R. Orientation in cognitive maps.Cognitive Psychology, 1981,13, 149–206.
Holyoak, K. J., &Mah, W. A. Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude.Cognitive Psychology, 1982,14, 328–352.
Kosslyn, S. M., &Pomerantz, J. R. Imagery, propositions, and the form of internal representations.Cognitive Psychology, 1977,9, 52–76.
Moar, I.Mental triangulation and the internal representation of spatial information.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1979.
Moar, I., &Carleton, L. Memory for routes.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1982,34A, 381–394.
Piaget, J., &Inhelder, B.The child’s conception of space. New York: Norton, 1967.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery.Psychological Bulletin, 1973,80, 1–24.
Shepard, R. N., &Chipman, S. Second-order isomorphism of internalrepresentations: Shapes of states.Cognitive Psychology, 1970,1, 1–17.
Siegel, A.W., &White, S. H. The development of spatial representations of large scale environments. In H. W. Reese (Ed.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Stevens, A., &Coupe, P. Distortions in judged spatial relations.Cognitive Psychology, 1978,10, 422–437.
Tversry, B. Distortions in memory for maps.Cognitive Psychology, 1981,13, 407–433.
Wilton, R.N. Knowledge of spatial relations: The specification of the information used in making inferences.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1979,31, 133–146.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The firstexperiment was carried out while the first author was at the MRC Applied Psychology Unit at Cambridge, England, and the second experiment was performed while he was a NATO postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, California.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moar, I., Bower, G.H. Inconsistency in spatial knowledge. Mem Cogn 11, 107–113 (1983). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213464
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213464