Investigating Cognitive Representations of Spatial Relationships

Sherman, Richard C.; Croxton, Jack S.; Giovanatto, Joseph

doi:10.1177/0013916579112004

Cited by 36 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with previous studies, which have found the exponent to be 1 or slightly less than 1 for perceived distance along the ground (Da Silva, 1985;Wagner, 1985;Wiest & Bell, 1985). Linear functions (exponents close to 1) are also found when subjects estimate from memory the distances between buildings in a familiar campus environment (Baird, Merrill, & Tannenbaum, 1979;Sherman, Croxton, & Giovanatto, 1979). This linear trend differs substantially from the power functions for imaged and recalled distance.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH) was examined for remembered and imaged stimuli. In Experiment 1, subjects gave remembered and imaged distances of familiar objects and imaged distance of nondescript rods. The relationship between stated size and distance is more adequately described by power functions with exponents less than 1 than by the more restricted SDIH (exponent of 1). In Experiment 2, subjects gave distance estimates to recalled and imaged familiar objects and described the visual context in which each object was situated. A different group then sorted the contexts into categories based on general similarity. There were no significant differences between distance estimates based on memory and those based on imagery, and the visual contexts were not sorted according to whether they were generated in the memory or in the imagery conditions. In Experiment 3, subjects estimated the distances to objects in an outdoor setting. A linear relationship was found between estimated and physical distance, suggesting that the lower exponents obtained in Experiments 1 and 2 were not artifacts of the distance judgment procedure.The authors thank Jarnshed Bharucha, Julian Hochberg, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to John C. Baird, Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755.The visual angle at overflow, cf> in Equation 1, is taken to be a constant for each subject and each class of stimuli. (Note that if Sand D are specified, this is a one-parameter model, and that in Equation lb the y-intercept of the function is zero.) The maximum size of the imaged visual angle is not constant, however, as shown by the wide range of values (13°to 50°) that Kosslyn (1978) obtained for different classes of objects. The SDIH appears to be satisfied, but different linear functions (slopes in Equation I) hold for different categories of objects. More importantly, the visual angle calculated along the best fitting function for a particular class does not remain constant when largerIn the course of examining the cognitive resources utilized in visual imagery, Kosslyn (1978) measured the maximum extent of the visual field used in visual imagery. He found a linear relationship between the stated size of a familiar object and the minimum distance at which the entire object could be portrayed in an image. This distance, the point at which an imaged object overflowed, was taken to delineate the maximum visual angle (boundaries) of the "mind's eye." Such a result suggests that the "imaged" relationship between known size and distance agrees with the size-distance invariance hypothesis (SDIH): for a fixed visual angle (cf», the ratio of perceived size (S) to perceived distance (D) of an object in real space is constant: tan e = SID D = S/tancf>.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The research literature on sketch maps is large and contains findings ranging from metric distortions between sketch maps and actual maps (see Briggs, 1976;Sherman et al, 1979;Buttenfield, 1986), through to peoples' environmental perception (e.g., Downs and Stea, 1973;Moore, 1973;Golledge and Stimson, 1997), to environmental learning theories (e.g., Hart and Moore, 1973;Siegel and White, 1975;Golledge, 1978). The traditional methods used for sketch map analysis, which focus on the final drawing, do not show how the image of a city is acquired, stored and progressively recalled.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in the Sketch Map Creation Process

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender differences in navigation and mapping skills have long been noted in past research. Females tend to use landmarks for navigation while males favour paths and co-ordinate systems. Similar findings are found in sketch maps, where landmarks are prevalent on female maps and males draw more paths. Although the type and quantity of map elements give an indication of gender differences, there is potential for further insights to emerge from analysis of the process or sequence in which map elements are drawn. The sequence provides detail on when in the drawing process gender differences or similarities in map elements arise.This study found that in the initial drawing of the map, there were few gender difference in the number of landmarks and paths drawn. However, females drew a larger proportion of landmarks and males drew more paths from 10% to 25% into the drawing process. Thereon until half way through, no statistical differences were found. Differences were seen again in the last half of the drawing process. Overall, females drew more landmarks and paths than men, but the difference lay in when clusters of these map elements were drawn.

show abstract

“…We then used this explicitly constructed map as a representation of their cognitive map. Such a technique is relatively common in the spatial cognition literature (see, e.g., Baird et al, 1979;Huertas & Ochaita, 1992;Sherman, Croxton, & Giovanatto, 1979;Waller, 2000;Walsh, Krauss, & Regnier, 1981). Comparisons between participants' explicitly constructed maps and those derived from MDS and other scaling techniques can inform us about the relative ability of these techniques to represent peoples' cognitive maps.…”

Section: Mds In Spatial Cognition Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scaling techniques for modeling directional knowledge

Waller

Haun

2003

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common way for researchers to model or graphically portray spatial knowledge of a large environment is by applying multidimensional scaling (MDS) to a set of pairwise distance estimations. We introduce two MDS-like techniques that incorporate people's knowledge of directions instead of (or in addition to) their knowledge of distances. Maps of a familiar environment derived from these procedures were more accurate and were rated by participants as being more accurate than those derived from nonmetric MDS. By incorporating people's relatively accurate knowledge of directions, these methods offer spatial cognition researchers and behavioral geographers a sharper analytical tool than MDS for studying cognitive maps.

show abstract

Investigating Cognitive Representations of Spatial Relationships

Cited by 36 publications

References 7 publications

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Imagery, memory, and size-distance invariance

Gender Differences in the Sketch Map Creation Process

Scaling techniques for modeling directional knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About