Abstract
Whether visual spatial attention can be split to several discontinuous locations concurrently is still an open and intensely debated question. We address this question in the domain of spatial language use by comparing two existing and three newly proposed computational models. All models are assessed regarding their ability to account for human acceptability ratings for how well a given spatial term describes the spatial arrangement of two functionally related objects. One of the existing models assumes that taking the functional relations into account involves split attention. All new models incorporate functional relations without assuming split attention. Our simulations suggest that not assuming split attention is more appropriate for taking the functional relations into account than assuming split attention. At the same time, the simulations raise doubt as to whether any of the models appropriately captures the impact of functional relations on spatial language use.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Posner, M.I.: Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32, 3–25 (1980)
Eriksen, C.W., Yeh, Y.Y.: Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11, 583–597 (1985)
McCormick, P.A., Klein, R., Johnston, S.: Splitting versus sharing focal attention: Comment on Castiello and Umilta. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24, 350–357 (1992, 1998)
Yap, J.Y., Lim, S.W.H.: Media multitasking predicts unitary versus splitting visual focal attention. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25, 889–902 (2013)
Eimer, M., Grubert, A.: Spatial attention can be allocated rapidly and in parallel to new visual objects. Current Biology 24, 193–198 (2014)
Jans, B., Peters, J.C., De Weerd, P.: Visual Spatial Attention to Multiple Locations at Once: The Jury Is Still Out. Psychological Review 117(2), 637–684 (2010)
Carlson, L.A., Logan, G.D.: Attention and spatial language. In: Itti, L., Rees, G., Tsotsos, J. (eds.) Neurobiology of Attention, pp. 330–336. Elsevier, San Diego (2005)
Carlson, L.A., Logan, G.D.: Using spatial terms to select an object. Memory & Cognition 29, 883–892 (2001)
Franconeri, S.L., Scimeca, J.M., Roth, J.C., Helseth, S.A., Kahn, L.E.: Flexible visual processing of spatial relationships. Cognition 122, 210–227 (2012)
Regier, T., Carlson, L.A.: Grounding Spatial Language in Perception: An Empirical and Computational Investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130(2), 273–298 (2001)
Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C.: Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology Press, New York (2004)
Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., Covey, E.S., Lattanzi, K.M.: “What” Effects on “Where”: Functional Influences on Spatial Relations. Psychological Science 10(6), 516–521 (1999)
Carlson, L.A., Regier, T., Lopez, W., Corrigan, B.: Attention Unites Form and Function in Spatial Language. Spatial Cognition & Computation 6(4), 295–308 (2006)
Logan, G.D., Sadler, D.D.: A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Garrett, M., Nadel, L. (eds.) Language and Space, pp. 493–529. M.I.T. Press, MA (1996)
Hörberg, T.: Influences of Form and Function on the Acceptability of Projective Prepositions in Swedish. Spatial Cognition & Computation 8(3), 193–218 (2008)
Hörberg, T.: Influences of Form and Function on Spatial Relations: Establishing functional and geometric influences on projective prepositions in Swedish. Magister thesis, Stockholm University (2006)
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A.W., Rosenbluth, M.N., Teller, A.H., Teller, E.: Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The Journal of Chemical Physics 21(6), 1087–1092 (1953)
Roberts, S., Pashler, H.: How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review 107(2), 358–367 (2000)
Pitt, M.A., Myung, I.J.: When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(10), 421–425 (2002)
Schultheis, H., Singhaniya, A., Chaplot, D.S.: Comparing Model Comparison Methods. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2013)
Efron, B., Tibshirani, R.J.: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York (1993)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kluth, T., Schultheis, H. (2014). Attentional Distribution and Spatial Language. In: Freksa, C., Nebel, B., Hegarty, M., Barkowsky, T. (eds) Spatial Cognition IX. Spatial Cognition 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8684. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11214-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11215-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)