Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorization

Crawford, L. Elizabeth; Regier, Terry; Huttenlocher, Janellen

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00064-0

Cited by 78 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although their analysis reveals a difference between linguistic and non-linguistic grouping patterns similar to the results by Crawford et al (2000), Klippel and Montello (2007) do not assess the role the axes played in the participants' conceptualizations of the groups. Also, they address (dynamic) turn direction concepts rather than (static) spatial relationships.…”

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Linguistic ratings on the same stimuli, however, show the typical prototype effect. Thus, Crawford et al (2000) conclude that the perpendicular axes play the role of prototypes for linguistic categories while they serve as boundaries for non-linguistic categories.…”

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…While Hayward and Tarr (1995) claim that both verbal and non-verbal categories have the same prototype structure, there is compelling evidence that linguistic prototypes for horizontal and vertical directions can correspond to boundaries in non-linguistic categorization (Crawford et al, 2000;Huttenlocher et al, 1991;Klippel and Montello, 2007). This may be due to differences in the specific task and analysis procedures.…”

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From this, Hayward and Tarr (1995) conclude that verbal and non-verbal categories have the same prototype structure. In contrast, Crawford et al (2000) and Huttenlocher et al (1991) presented experiments addressing estimation bias effects in memory tasks. When reproducing the position of a dot in a circle (Huttenlocher et al, 1991), or of a dot in relation to a schematic image of a television (Crawford et al, 2000), participants showed an angular bias of the reproduction towards the center of quadrants, away from the perpendicular axes.…”

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While a containment relation does not per se exclude prototypes or vague boundaries, we consider it to be indicative of boundary conceptualization, as it constitutes the alternative to a projective relation which emphasizes the aspect of directionality, as usually depicted by an arrow, and consistently shows prototype effects (Crawford et al, 2000;Gapp, 1995;Hayward and Tarr, 1995;Huttenlocher et al, 1991;Vorwerg and Tenbrink, 2007;Zimmer et al, 1998). The containment relation, on the other hand, emphasizes the aspect of containment in a region, and thus de-emphasizes any gradual differences within the region.…”

Section: Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Mast

Wolter

Klippel

et al. 2014

Spatial Cognition IX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Relations and Their Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Containmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Mast

Wolter

Klippel

et al. 2014

Spatial Cognition IX

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Association of Aging and Cognition With Complex Speech Understanding in Cochlear-Implanted Adults

Schvartz-Leyzac

Giordani

Pfingst

2023

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceThe association between cognitive function and outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) users is not completely understood, partly because some cognitive tests are confounded by auditory status. It is important to determine appropriate cognitive tests to use in a cohort of CI recipients.ObjectiveTo provide proof-of-concept for using an adapted version of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery in a cohort of patients with CIs and to explore how hearing in noise with a CI is affected by cognitive status using the adapted test.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this prognostic study, participants listened to sentences presented in a speech-shaped background noise. Cognitive tests consisted of 7 subtests of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery that were adapted for hearing impaired individuals by including written instructions and visual stimuli. Participants were prospectively recruited from and evaluated at a tertiary medical center. All participants had at least 6 months’ experience with their CI.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were performance on the adapted cognitive test and a speech recognition in noise task.ResultsParticipants were 20 adult perilingually or postlingually deafened CI users (50% male participants; median [range] age, 66 [26-80] years old). Performance on a sentence recognition in noise task was negatively associated with the chronological age of the listener (R2 = 0.29; β = 0.16; standard error, SE = 0.06; t = 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.27). Testing using the adapted version of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery revealed that a test of processing speed was also associated with performance, using a standardized score that accounted for contributions of other demographic factors (R2 = 0.28; 95% confidence interval, −0.42 to −0.05).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this prognostic study, older CI users showed poorer performance on a sentence-in-noise test compared with younger users. This poorer performance was correlated with a cognitive deficit in processing speed when cognitive function was assessed using a test battery adapted for participants with hearing loss. These results provide initial proof-of-concept results for using a standardized and adapted cognitive test battery in CI recipients.

show abstract

Spatial Cognition

Newcombe¹

2002

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter examines: (1) how humans keep track of their location in the world and the location of other entities, through both ego‐centered and environment‐centered systems; (2) how humans manipulate spatial information; (3) how humans represent and communicate about spatial information; and (4) how spatial thought can be used for nonspatial purposes. In each section, there is information on the behavior of human adults, as well as material on the behavior of other species, the development of mature competence, individual differences in mature competence, and the neurological underpinnings of competence.

show abstract

Linguistic and non-linguistic spatial categorization

Cited by 78 publications

References 15 publications

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Association of Aging and Cognition With Complex Speech Understanding in Cochlear-Implanted Adults

Spatial Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About