Preferred and Alternative Mental Models in Spatial Reasoning

Rauh, Reinhold; Hagen, Cornelius; Knauff, Markus; Kuss, Thomas; Schlieder, Christoph; Strube, Gerhard

doi:10.1080/13875868.2005.9683805

Cited by 47 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These preferences are assumed to emerge because participants first construct one, perhaps the most parsimonious, mental model out of several valid models (e.g., Rauh et al, 2005). Visual mental images are also assumed to “depict” just one situation at a time; in fact it is hard to imagine how a “depictive” representation could represent more than one situation simultaneously.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a consequence, if there are several valid conclusions that can be inferred, there is a preference for one conclusion which corresponds to the preferred mental model. Preferred mental models have been investigated in different domains, but in particular in the domain of spatial reasoning (e.g., Rauh et al, 2005; Jahn et al, 2007; Schultheis and Barkowsky, 2013). …”

Section: Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences between Spatial and Visual Mental Representations

Sima¹,

Schultheis²,

Barkowsky³

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the relationship between visual mental representations and spatial mental representations in human visuo-spatial processing. By comparing two common theories of visuo-spatial processing – mental model theory and the theory of mental imagery – we identified two open questions: (1) which representations are modality-specific, and (2) what is the role of the two representations in reasoning. Two experiments examining eye movements and preferences for under-specified problems were conducted to investigate these questions. We found that significant spontaneous eye movements along the processed spatial relations occurred only when a visual mental representation is employed, but not with a spatial mental representation. Furthermore, the preferences for the answers of the under-specified problems differed between the two mental representations. The results challenge assumptions made by mental model theory and the theory of mental imagery.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between Spatial and Visual Mental Representations

Sima¹,

Schultheis²,

Barkowsky³

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If, for instance, you know that London is north of Paris and that Paris is west of Prague, in principle, depending on the distances between London, Paris, and Prague, the relation between London and Prague can be anything from west to north. However, when asked to report this relation, participants are quite happy to commit to a relation, even though it cannot be determined from the information in the problem (and hence is ambiguous; see Rauh et al, 2005;Jahn, Johnson-Laird, & Knauff, 2005). Moreover, the chosen relation is quite stable both within an individual and across different individuals.…”

Section: Section 24 Spatial Inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Reasoning

Schultheis

Carlson

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(1995) report results concerning the relation between human judgements of relations between lines and regions and the distinctions drawn by particular spatial calculi, Renz et al. (2000) and Rauh et al. (2005) consider the degree of fit between qualitative spatial descriptions and preferred mental model building during problem solving, Klippel et al.…”

Section: Ontology and Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Situating Spatial Language and the Role of Ontology: Issues and Outlook

Bateman

2010

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the analysis and formalisation of the meaning of spatial expressions represents an extremely active area of research at this time, there remain significant problems in relating spatial expressions to their intended interpretations in context. In this article we motivate a spatial semantics architecture that draws a formal separation of linguistic semantics and non‐linguistic spatial descriptions. Methods drawn from ontological engineering are suggested to be relevant both for the representations of these areas and for specifying the interrelationships between them. In addition, a characterisation of current ontologies involving space is given, clarifying why spatial language is particularly difficult to interpret. The article concludes with our own proposal for a general architecture for natural language spatial semantics capable of being used across diverse applications. Extensive bibliographical references to the state of the art in spatial language and spatial ontologies are provided.

show abstract

Preferred and Alternative Mental Models in Spatial Reasoning

Cited by 47 publications

References 32 publications

Differences between Spatial and Visual Mental Representations

Differences between Spatial and Visual Mental Representations

Spatial Reasoning

Situating Spatial Language and the Role of Ontology: Issues and Outlook

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About