Coding of spatial location information: An automatic process?

Abstract

Several researches have claimed that spatial location information is automatically encoded, a claim supported by studies testing several criteria for the identification of automatic processes. However, a careful look at these studies reveals that some have not used appropriate testing methodology, the results of others have not complied with the criteria, and some criteria have not been examined at all. This article includes four experiments in which five criteria for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes were examined. Results show that memory for spatial location information is influenced by intention, age of subjects, competing task loads, practice, strategy manipulations, and individual differences. These results generally hold for memory of absolute location and for relative location information. The reported results are at odds with the claim that memory for spatial location information is exclusively mediated by automatic encoding processes. The concept of automaticity and the appropriateness of the testing criteria are discussed in light of the current results and recent findings on other features of the environment claimed to be automatically encoded.

Recognition memory of spatial location information: Another failure to support automaticity

“…Results of these experiments clearly show that recognition memory for spatial location information is influenced by intention, age of subjects, competing task loads, practice, and individual differences. The reported results, which extend those reported by Naveh-Benjamin (1987) for spatial location recall memory, are at odds with the claim that memory for spatial location information is exclusively mediated by automatic encoding processes. The concept of automaticity and the appropriateness of the criteria suggested for testing the automaticity of cognitive processes are discussed in light of the current results and recent findings on other features ofthe environment (e.g., frequency of occurrence) previously claimed to be automatically encoded.…”

“…Although Hasher and Zacks (1979) relied on a number of studies to support their automaticity claim for spatial location information, which is the focus of this paper, a careful look reveals that the results of some tests of criteria for automaticity are rather ambiguous, whereas other criteria have not been studied at all. In addition, results of a recent study (Naveh-Benjamin, 1987) were clearly not in line with the automaticity position. In the following section, some of the evidence about tests of the various criteria for automaticity of the encoding of spatial location information is reviewed.…”

Learning Directions of Objects Specified by Vision, Spatial Audition, or Auditory Spatial Language: Figure 1.

“…Although learning and memory for visually specified positions or object locations has been investigated (e.g., Musen 1966;Pezdek et al 1986;Naveh-Benjamin 1987;Tresch et al 1993;Postma and De Haan 1996;Chieffi and Allport 1997), little research compares learning and memory performance in 3D space across modalities (e.g., Battacchi et al 1981). Recently, Loomis et al (2002) demonstrated that spoken language could produce a spatial representation that functioned behaviorally like one derived from 3D sound, despite the fact that the neural pathways to spatial representation are quite different across these input modalities.…”

“…We collected data from young and middleaged adults, because learning and memory for locations decreases with increasing age (e.g., Light and Zelinski 1983;Pezdek 1983;Evans et al 1984;Naveh-Benjamin 1987;Kirasic 2000).…”

Transfer after process-based object-location memory training in healthy older adults.

“…OLM performance decrements in older adults have been repeatedly demonstrated (for reviews see Postma, 2006 andUttl &Graf, 1993;Noack, Lövdén, Schmiedek, & Lindenberger, 2013). More importantly, memory for objects and memory for locations are relatively mildly impaired in old age, but profound memory deficits arise for object-location associations (Kessels, Hobbels, & Postma, 2007;Naveh-Benjamin, 1987;1988;Old & Naveh-Benjamin, 2008; but see Soei & Daum, 2008). Besides, OLM is particularly suitable for a process-based training approach because it solely involves visuo-spatial material.…”