Perspectives in Externalizations of Mental Spatial Representations

  • H. LöwenEmail author
  • A. Schwering
  • J. Krukar
  • S. Winter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Place is a core component of human spatial knowledge and therefore a central topic in GI Science. People use externalizations of mental spatial representations to communicate about space. Textual descriptions and graphical descriptions are the two main modes of communication. In this paper a distinction of three scales of spatial descriptions is assumed and textual and graphical descriptions are collected and analyzed in order to investigate the differences between the spatial descriptions. Thereby the focus lies on the properties and perspectives of the descriptions. It is found that within the textual descriptions people tend to not consistently use one perspective, but switch perspectives and predominantly apply the route perspective. For the graphical descriptions there has been no clear categorization of description perspectives. However, there are differences in the properties of these descriptions that indicate different perspectives.


Spatial information extraction Communication modes Spatial description perspectives 


  1. Anacta VJ, Schwering A, Li R (2014) Determining hierarchy of landmarks in spatial descriptions. In: Eighth international conference on geographic information science, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant DJ, Tversky B (1999) Mental representations of perspective and spatial relations from diagrams and models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25(1):137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhler K (1982) The deictic field of language and deictic words. In: Jarvella RJ, Klein W (eds) Speech, place, and action. Wiley, New York, pp 9–30Google Scholar
  4. Carlson-Radvansky LA, Irwin DE (1994) Reference frame activation during spatial term assignment. J Mem Lang 33(5):646–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ehrich V, Koster C (1983) Discourse organization and sentence form: The structure of room descriptions in Dutch. Discourse Process 6(2):169–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emmorey K, Tversky B, Taylor HA (2000) Using space to describe space: Perspective in speech, sign, and gesture. Spat Cogn Comput 2(3):157–180Google Scholar
  7. Freundschuh SM, Egenhofer MJ (1997) Human conceptions of spaces: implications for geographic information systems. Trans GIS 2(4):361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galea LAM, Kimura D (1993) Sex differences in route-learning. Pers Individ Differ 14(1):53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hund AM, Schmettow M, Noordzij ML (2012) The impact of culture and recipient perspective on direction giving in the service of wayfinding. J Environ Psychol 32(4):327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kato Y, Takeuchi Y (2003) Individual differences in wayfinding strategies. J Environ Psychol 23(2):171–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lawton CA (1996) Strategies for indoor wayfinding: The role of orientation. J Environ Psychol 16(2):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lawton CA, Kallai J (2002) Gender differences in wayfinding strategies and anxiety about wayfinding: a cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles 47(9):389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levelt WJM (1982) Cognitive styles in the use of spatial direction terms. In: Jarvella RJ, Klein W (eds) Speech, place, and action. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom, pp 251–268Google Scholar
  14. Levelt WJM (1984) Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In: van Doorn AJ, van de Grind WA, Koenderink JJ (eds) Limits in perception. VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 323–358Google Scholar
  15. Levelt WJM (1989) Speaking: from intention to articulation. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Levinson SC (1996) Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: crosslinguistic evidence. In: Bloom P et al (eds) Language and space. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 109–156Google Scholar
  17. Montello DR (1993) Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In: Frank AU, Campari I (eds) Spatial information theory: a theoretical basis for GIS, Proceedings COSIT ’93. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 312–321Google Scholar
  18. Münzer S, Hölscher C (2011) Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zu räumlichen Strategien. Diagnostica 57(3):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pazzaglia F, Beni R De (2001) Strategies of processing spatial information in survey and landmark-centred individuals. Eur J Cogn Psychol 13(4):493–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richter K-F, Winter S (2014) Landmarks: GIScience for intelligent services. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwering A, Li R, Anacta VJ (2013) Orientation information in different forms of route instructions. In: Proceedings of the 16th AGILE conference on geographic information science, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  22. Shanon B (1979) Where questions. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual meeting on association for computational linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, La Jolla, California, pp 73–75Google Scholar
  23. Sholl MJ et al (2000) The relation of sex and sense of direction to spatial orientation in an unfamiliar environment. J Environ Psychol 20(1):17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992a) Descriptions and depictions of environments. Mem Cogn 20(5):483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1992b) Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. J Mem Lang 31(2):261–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor HA, Tversky B (1996) Perspective in spatial descriptions. J Mem Lang 35(3):371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky B, Lee PU, Mainwaring S (1999) Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spat Cogn Comput 1(4):399–412Google Scholar
  28. Vasardani M et al (2013) From descriptions to depictions: a conceptual framework. In: Tenbrink T et al (eds) Spatial information theory: 11th international conference, COSIT 2013. Springer, pp 299–319Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for GeoinformaticsUniversity of MuensterMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Department of Infrastructure EngineeringThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations