Advertisement

Acquisition of Cognitive Aspect Maps

  • Bernhard Hommel
  • Lothar Knuf
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2685)

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the cognitive consequences of acquiring different aspects of a novel visual scene. Subjects were presented with map-like configurations, in which subsets of elements shared perceptual or action-related features. As observed previously, feature sharing facilitated judging the spatial relationship between elements, suggesting the integration of spatial and non-spatial information. Then, the same configuration was presented again but both the features’ dimension and the subsets defined by them were changed. In Experiment 1, where all spatial judgments were performed in front of the visible configuration, neither the novel features nor the inter-element relations they implied were acquired. In Experiment 2, where the configurations were to be memorized before the critical judgments were made, novel features were acquired, in part counteracting previous effects of feature overlap. Results suggest that different, subsequently acquired aspects of the same scene are integrated into a common cognitive map.

Keywords

Group Membership Spatial Relation Distance Estimation Incongruent Trial Feature Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berendt, B., Barkowsky, T., Freksa, C., & Kelter, S. (1998). In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 313–336). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Gehrke, J., & Hommel, B. (1998). The impact of exogenous factors on spatial coding in perception and memory. In C. Freksa, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 64–77). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox. In G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd and the ABC research group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 3–36). Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hommel, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (in press). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24.Google Scholar
  5. Hommel, B., Gehrke, J., & Knuf, L. (2000). Hierarchical coding in the perception and memory of spatial layouts. Psychological Research, 64, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hommel, B., & Knuf, L. (2000). Action related determinants of spatial coding in perception and memory. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (Eds.), Spatial cognition II: Integrating abstract theories, empirical studies, formal methods, and practical applications (pp. 387–398). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Hommel, B., Knuf, L., & Gehrke, J. (2002). Action-induced cognitive organization of spatial maps. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  8. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (in press). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24.Google Scholar
  9. Knuf, L., Klippel, A., Hommel, B. & Freksa, C. (2002). Perceptually induced distortions in cognitive maps. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  10. McNamara, T.P. (1986). Mental representation of spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McNamara, T.P. (1991). Memory’s view of space. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 27, 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McNamara, T.P., Hardy, J.K., & Hirtle, S.C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McNamara, T.P., & LeSueur, L.L. (1989). Mental representations of spatial and nonspatial relations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 215–233.Google Scholar
  14. Palmer, S.E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441–474.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 526–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, B. (1981). Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 407–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tversky, B., & Schiano, D.J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 118, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Hommel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lothar Knuf
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Cognitive Psychology UnitLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Grundig AG Usability LabNurembergGermany
  3. 3.Max Planck Institute for Psychological ResearchMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations