Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bach, P., Knoblich, G., Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D., & Prinz, W. (2005). Action comprehension: Deriving spatial and functional relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 465–479.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Blocher, A., & Stopp, E. (1998). Time-dependent generation of minimal sets of spatial descriptions. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.), Representation and processing of spatial relations (pp. 57–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown-Schmidt, S., Byron, D. K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 292–313.
Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Bukach, C. M. (2003). Gesturing and naming: The use of functional knowledge in object identification. Psychological Science, 14, 467–472.
Carlson, L. A., & Hill, P. L. (in press). Formulating spatial descriptions across various dialogue contexts. In T. Tenbrink, K. Coventry, & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language in dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carlson, L. A., & Kenny, R. (2006). Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 682–688.
Carlson, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (2001). Using spatial terms to select an object. Memory & Cognition, 29, 883–892.
Carlson, L. [A.], & van der Zee, E. (2005). Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization, and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., Covey, E. S., & Lattanzi, K. M. (1999). “What” effects on “where”: Functional influences on spatial relations. Psychological Science, 10, 516–521.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7, 56–60.
Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Tang, Z. (2000). Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition, 28, 812–820.
Clark, H. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.
Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. New York: Psychology Press.
Craton, L. G., Elicker, J., Plumert, J. M., & Pick, H. L., Jr. (1990). Children’s use of frames of reference in communication of spatial location. Child Development, 61, 1528–1543.
de Vega, M., Rodrigo, M. J., Ato, M., Dehn, D. M., & Barquero, B. (2002). How nouns and prepositions fit together: An exploration of the semantics of locative sentences. Discourse Processes, 34, 117–143.
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24, 409–436.
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.
Greenspan, S. L., & Segal, E. M. (1984). Reference and comprehension: A topic—comment analysis of sentence—picture verification. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 556–606.
Hayward, W. G., & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition, 55, 39–84.
Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hund, A. M., & Plumert, J. M. (2007). What counts as by? Young children’s use of relative distance to judge nearbyness. Developmental Psychology, 43, 121–133.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.
Logan, G. D., & Compton, B. J. (1996). Distance and distraction effects in the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 159–172.
Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mainwaring, S. D., Tversky, B., Ohgishi, M., & Schiano, D. J. (2003). Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 3, 3–42.
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olson, D. (1970). Language and thought: Aspects of a cognitive theory of semantics. Psychological Review, 77, 143–184.
Plumert, J. M., Carswell, C., De Vet, K., & Ihrig, D. (1995). The content and organization of communication about object locations. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 477–498.
Plumert, J. M., Ewert, K., & Spear, S. J. (1995). The early development of children’s communication about nested spatial relations. Child Development, 66, 959–969.
Plumert, J. M., & Hawkins, A. M. (2001). Biases in young children’s communication about spatial relations: Containment versus proximity. Child Development, 72, 22–36.
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York: Plenum.
Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 371–391.
Tversky, B. (2005). Form and function. In L. [A.] Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development (pp. 332–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169–193.
Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 44, pp. 35–62). San Diego: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carlson, L.A., Hill, P.L. Processing the presence, placement, and properties of a distractor in spatial language tasks. Memory & Cognition 36, 240–255 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.240
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.2.240