Spatial frameworks are a class of spatial mental model that code locations of objects relative to the body axes. Spatial frameworks predict accessibility of spatial relations from memory primarily on the basis of the relative asymmetry of the body axes, such that highly asymmetric axes lead to faster retrieval of information. The present research examined how bodily asymmetries affect retrieval. Experiment 1 contrasted two theoretical accounts. The Salience Account proposes that relative degrees of asymmetry render axes differentially salient, and hence differentially foregrounded in one's mental model. The Direction Decision Account proposes that an explicit decision process is necessary to access specific locations along body axes. The ease of the decision process presumably depends on the degree of asymmetry that exists to discriminate poles along a body axis. The spatial framework pattern of accessibility was observed both when subjects identified specific directions of objects and when subjects identified just the axis to which objects were associated, supporting the Salience Account. Experiment 2 investigated whether lateralization affects accessibility from spatial frameworks. Performance of highly lateralized individuals did not differ from that of weakly lateralized individuals.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practiceHove, U.K: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
2.
BransfordJ. D.BarclayJ. R.FranksJ. J. (1972). Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach.Cognitive Psychology3, 193–209.
3.
BryantD. J.Mental frames for interpreting direction terms.Vision and language.OlivierP.MaassW.New York: Springer-Verlagin press.
4.
BryantD. J.TverskyB. (1992). Assessing spatial frameworks with object and direction probes.Bulletin of the Psychonomc Society30, 29–32.
5.
BryantD. J.TverskyB.Mental representations of spatial relations from diagrams and models.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. in press.
6.
BryantD. J.TverskyB.FranklinN. (1992). Internal and external spatial frameworks for representing described scenes.Journal of Memory and Language31, 74–98.
7.
BryantD. J.TverskyB.LancaM. (1999). Retrieving spatial relations from observation and memory Submitted manuscript.
8.
ClarkH. H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child.Cognitive development and the acquisition of language.MooreT. E.New York: Academic Press27–63.
9.
CorenS. (1993). The Lateral Preference Inventory for measurement of handedness, footedness, eyedness, and earedness: Norms for young adults.Bulletin of the Psychonomc Society31, 1–3.
10.
CorenS.PoracC. (1978). The validity and reliability of seIf-report items for the measurement of lateral preference.British Journal of Psychology69, 207–211.
11.
FarrellW. S. J. (1979). Coding left and right.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 42–51.
12.
FillmoreC. (1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixisBloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
13.
FranklinN.HenkelL. A.ZangasT. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions.Memory & Cognition23, 397–407.
14.
FranklinN.TverskyB. (1990). Searching imagined environments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119, 63–76.
15.
FranklinN.TverskyB.CoonV. (1992). Switching points of view in spatial mental models acquired from text.Memory & Cognition20, 507–518.
16.
Mental models.GentnerD.StevensA. L.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates1983.
17.
GlenbergA. M.MeyerM.LindemK. (1987). Mental models contribute to foregrounding during text comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language26, 69–83.
18.
HalaszF. G.MoranT. P. (1983). Mental models and problem solving in using a calculator.CHI'83 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.JandaA.New York: ACM212–216.
19.
HelligeJ. B.BlochM. I.CowinE. L.EngT. L.EviatorZ.SergentV. (1994). Individual variation in hemispheric asymmetry: Multitask study of effects related to handedness and sex.Journal of Experimental Psychobgy: General123, 235–256.
20.
HopkinsW. D.BardK. A.JonesA.BalesS. L. (1994). Chimpanzee hand preference in throwing and infant cradling: Implications for the origin of human handedness.Current Anthropology34, 786–790.
21.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousnessCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Johnson-LairdP. N.ByrneR. M J. (1991). DeductionHove, U.K: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
23.
LeveltW. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space.Limits in perception.van DoomA. J.van de GrindW. A.KoenderinkJ. J.Utrecht: VNU Science Press328–358.
24.
LoftusG. R. (1978). Comprehending compass directions.Memory & Cognition6, 416–422.
25.
LyleJ. G.CameronR. (1976). Discrimination of left-right orientation with directional markers.Perceptual and Motor Skills43, 1279–1282.
26.
MakiR. H. (1979). Processing relative locations in a natural space.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society14, 25–28.
27.
MakiR. H.GrandyC. A.HaugeG. (1979). Why is telling right from left more difficult than telling above from below?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance5, 52–67.
28.
MakiR. H.MakiW. S.Jr.MarshL. G. (1977). Processing locational and orientational information.Memory & Cognition5, 602–612.
29.
MakiR. H.MarekM. N. (1997). Egocentric spatial framework effects from single and multiple points of view.Memory & Cognition25, 677–690.
30.
MaxwellS. E.DelaneyH. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspectiveBebnont, CA: Wadsworth.
31.
MillerG. A.Johnson-LairdP. N. (1976). Language and perceptionCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
MorrowD. G.GreenspanS. L. (1989). Situation models and information accessibility.Model of cognition: A review of cognitive science.SharkeyN. E.Norwood, NJ: Able53–77.
33.
MorrowD. G.GreenspanS. L.BowerG. H. (1987). Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language26, 165–187.
34.
OldfieldR. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh handedness inventory.Neuropsychologia9, 97–113.
35.
RaczkowskiD.KalatJ. W.NebesR. (1974). Reliability and validity of some handedness questionnaire items.Neuropsychologia12, 43–47.
36.
RodrigoM. J.de VegaM. (1995). The use of direction terms in Spanish: A study on referential semantics.Scientific Contributions to General Psychology13, 49–64.
37.
ShepardR. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming.Psychological Review91, 417–447.
38.
ShepardR. N.HurwitzS. (1984). Upward direction, mental rotation, and discrimination of left and right turns in maps.Cognition18, 161–193.
39.
ShollM. J.EgethH. E. (1981). Right-left confusion in the adult: A verbal labeling effect.Memory & Cognition9, 339–350.
40.
SnodgrassJ. G.YuditskyT. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers28, 516–536.
41.
StorferM. D. (1995). Problems in left-right discrimination in a high-IQ population.Perceptual and Motor Skills81, 491–497.
42.
TaylorH. A.TverskyB. (1992). Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions.Journal of Memory and Language31, 261–292.
43.
TverskyB. (1991). Spatial mental models.The psychology of learning and motivation.BowerG. H.San Diego, CA: Academic Pressvol. 27, 109–145.
44.
van DijkT. A.KintschW. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehensionNew York: Academic Press.
45.
WhiteL. E.LucasG.RichardsA.PurvesD. (1994). Cerebral asymmetry and handedness.Nature368, 197–198.
