Document Open Access Logo

What Makes the Difference When Learning Spatial Information Using Language? The Contribution of Visuo-Spatial Individual Factors

Authors Chiara Meneghetti, Veronica Muffato

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.13.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.75 MB
  • 15 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Chiara Meneghetti
Veronica Muffato

Cite As Get BibTex

Chiara Meneghetti and Veronica Muffato. What Makes the Difference When Learning Spatial Information Using Language? The Contribution of Visuo-Spatial Individual Factors. In 13th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 86, pp. 13:1-13:15, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2017.13

Abstract

Within the spatial cognition domain, increasing interest is being paid to identifying the factors able to support good-quality environment learning. The present study examined the role of several individual visuo-spatial factors in supporting representations derived from spatial language,using descriptions. A group of undergraduates performed visuo-spatial and verbal cognitive tasks and completed visuo-spatial questionnaires, then listened to descriptions of fictitious large-scale environments presented from survey (map-based) and route (person-based) views, and to non-spatial descriptions for control purposes. Their recall was assessed using a verification test and a graphical representation task. The results showed that: (i) verbal abilities support accuracy in recall tasks of spatial and non-spatial descriptions; (ii) visuo-spatial abilities, preferences (such as pleasure in exploring), and visuo-spatial strategies specifically support accuracy in recall tasks of spatial descriptions. The contribution of individual visuo-spatial factors varies, however, as a function of the type of description and the type of recall task: preference for the survey strategy seems more associated with performance in survey description recall and graphical representation. The results are discussed in the light of spatial learning models and in terms of their implications.

Subject Classification

Keywords
  • Spatial language
  • survey description
  • route description
  • visuo-spatial abilities
  • self-reported visuo-spatial factors

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Gary L. Allen, K. C. Kirasic, Shannon H. Dobson, Richard G. Long, and Sharon Beck. Predicting environmental learning from spatial abilities: An indirect route. Intelligence, 22:327-355, 1996. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90026-4.
  2. Tad T. Brunyé and Holly A. Taylor. Working memory in developing and applying mental models from spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3):701-729, 2008. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.08.003.
  3. Kenneth P. Burnham and David R. Anderson. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer, 2nd edition, 2002. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1011.1669v3.
  4. Heather Burte and Mary Hegarty. Individual and strategy differences in an allocentric-heading recall task. In Proceedings of the 35th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 1958-1963. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. Cornoldi Cesare, Candela Mariangela, Fenzi Virginia, and Esperia Lavis. Prove di lettura e scrittura MT-16-19 : batteria per la verifica degli apprendimenti e la diagnosi di dislessia e disortografia : classi terza, quarta, quinta della scuola secondaria di 2° grado. Centro studi Erickson, 2014. Google Scholar
  6. Philip Michael Corsi. Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain. PhD thesis, McGill University, 1972. Google Scholar
  7. Meredyth Daneman and Philip M. Merikle. Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4):422-433, dec 1996. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546.
  8. Rossana De Beni, Erika Borella, Barbara Carretti, Cinzia Marigo, and Lucia A. Nava. Portfolio per la valutazione del benessere e delle abilità cognitive nell'età adulta e avanzata [The assesment of well-being and cognitive abilities in adulthood and aging]. Firenze, Italy: Giunti OS, 2008. Google Scholar
  9. Rossana De Beni, Chiara Meneghetti, Feliciana Fiore, Lucia Gava, and Erika Borella. Batteria Visuo-spaziale. Strumenti per la valutazione delle abilità visuo-spaziali nell'arco di vita adulta [Visuo-spatial battery: Instrument for assessing visuo-spatial abilities across adult life span]. Firenze, Italy: Hogrefe, 2014. Google Scholar
  10. Emilie Deyzac, Robert H. Logie, and Michel Denis. Visuospatial working memory and the processing of spatial descriptions. British Journal of Psychology, 97(2):217-243, 2006. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712605X67484.
  11. Valerie Gyselinck, Rossana Beni, Francesca Pazzaglia, Chiara Meneghetti, and Amandine Mondoloni. Working memory components and imagery instructions in the elaboration of a spatial mental model. Psychological Research, 71(3):373-382, 2007. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0091-1.
  12. Valerie Gyselinck and Chiara Meneghetti. The role of spatial working memory in understanding verbal descriptions: A window onto the interaction between verbal and spatial processing. In A. Vandienrendonck and Szmalec A., editors, Spatial working memory, pages 159-180. Hove: Press., Psychology, 2011. Google Scholar
  13. Adamantini Hatzipanayioti, Alexia Galati, and Marios N. Avraamides. The protagonist’s first perspective influences the encoding of spatial information in narratives. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3):506-520, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1056194.
  14. Mary Hegarty, Daniel R. Montello, Anthony E. Richardson, Toru Ishikawa, and Kristin Lovelace. Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34:151-176, 2006. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005.
  15. Mary Hegarty and David Waller. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32:175-191, 2004. http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1011.1669v3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001.
  16. Mary Hegarty and David Waller. Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities. In P. Shah and A Miyake, editors, The Cambridge handbook of visuo-spatial thinking, pages 122-169. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Google Scholar
  17. Wendy Johnson and Thomas J. Bouchard. The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33(4):393-416, 2005. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.12.002.
  18. Philip N. Johnson-Laird. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press, 1983. Google Scholar
  19. Junchul Kim, Maria Vasardani, and Stephan Winter. From descriptions to depictions: A dynamic sketch map drawing strategy. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 5868(March):29-53, 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2015.1084509.
  20. David F. Lohman. Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg, editor, Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, pages 181-248. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988. Google Scholar
  21. Chiara Meneghetti, Erika Borella, Valerie Gyselinck, and Rossana De Beni. Age-differences in environment route learning: The role of input and recall-test modalities in young and older adults. Learning and Individual Differences, 22:884-890, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.04.006.
  22. Chiara Meneghetti, Erika Borella, Veronica Muffato, Francesca Pazzaglia, and Rossana De Beni. Environment learning from spatial descriptions: The role of perspective and spatial abilities in young and older adults. In Spatial Cognition IX, pages 30-45. Springer International Publishing, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11215-2_3.
  23. Chiara Meneghetti, Rossana De Beni, Valérie Gyselinck, and Francesca Pazzaglia. Working memory involvement in spatial text processing: What advantages are gained from extended learning and visuo-spatial strategies? British Journal of Psychology, 102(3):499-518, 2011. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02007.x.
  24. Chiara Meneghetti, Enia Labate, Francesca Pazzaglia, Colin Hamilton, and Valérie Gyselinck. The role of visual and spatial working memory in forming mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. British Journal of Psychology, pages 225-243, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12193.
  25. Chiara Meneghetti, Lucia Ronconi, Francesca Pazzaglia, and Rossana De Beni. Spatial mental representations derived from spatial descriptions: The predicting and mediating roles of spatial preferences, strategies, and abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 105:295-315, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12038.
  26. Daniel R. Montello, David Waller, Mary Hegarty, and Gary L. Allen. Spatial memory of real environments, virtual environments, and maps. In G.L. Allen, editor, Human Spatial Memory, pages 251-285. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781410609984.
  27. Veronica Muffato, Chiara Meneghetti, Virginia Di Ruocco, and Rossana De Beni. When young and older adults learn a map: The influence of individual visuo-spatial factors. Learning and Individual Differences, 53:114-121, 2017. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.12.002.
  28. Francesca Pazzaglia, Cesare Cornoldi, and Rossana De Beni. Differenze individuali nella rappresentazione dello spazio e nell'abilità di orientamento: Presentazione di un questionario autovalutativo. Giornale italiano di psicologia, 27:627-650, 2000. Google Scholar
  29. Francesca Pazzaglia and Chiara Meneghetti. Spatial text processing in relation to spatial abilities and spatial styles. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(8):972-980, 2012. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2012.725716.
  30. Francesca Pazzaglia, Chiara Meneghetti, Rossana De Beni, and Valerie Gyselinck. Working memory components in survey and route spatial text processing. Cognitive Processing, 11(4):359-369, 2010. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0353-0.
  31. Patrick Péruch, Vanessa Chabanne, Marie-Pascale Nesa, Catherine Thinus-Blanc, and Michel Denis. Comparing distances in mental images constructed from visual experience or verbal descriptions: The impact of survey versus route perspective. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(11):1950-1967, 2006. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470210500539408.
  32. M. V. Pestun and V. A. Galaktionov. Algorithms for the construction and recognition of navigational route descriptions for cartographic computer systems. Programming and Computer Software, 42(6):341-346, 2016. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0361768816060037.
  33. Luciana Picucci, Valérie Gyselinck, Pascale Piolino, Serge Nicolas, and Andrea Bosco. Spatial mental models: The interaction of presentation format, task requirements and availability of working memory components. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(3):314-327, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2909.
  34. Christopher A. Sanchez and Jennifer Wiley. The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 31:33-45, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.007.
  35. Amy L. Shelton, Steven A. Marchette, and Andrew J. Furman. A mechanistic approach to individual differences in spatial learning, memory, and navigation. In B.H. Ross, editor, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, volume 59, chapter VI, pages 223-259. Elsevier, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407187-2.00006-X.
  36. Masashi Sugimoto and Takashi Kusumi. The effect of text continuity on spatial representation: Route versus survey perspective. Cognitive Processing, 15(1):65-75, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0582-0.
  37. H. A. Taylor, S. J. Naylor, and N. A. Chechile. Goal-specific influences on the representation of spatial perspective. Memory & cognition, 27(2):309-19, 1999. URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10226440.
  38. Holly A. Taylor and Barbara Tversky. Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2):261-292, apr 1992. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90014-O.
  39. David H. Uttal, Nathaniel G. Meadow, Elizabeth Tipton, Linda L. Hand, Alison R. Alden, Christopher Warren, and Nora S. Newcombe. The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139:352-402, 2013. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028446.
  40. Steven M. Weisberg, Victor R. Schinazi, Nora S. Newcombe, Thomas F. Shipley, and Russell A. Epstein. Variations in cognitive maps: understanding individual differences in navigation. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 40:669-82, 2014. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035261.
  41. Thomas Wolbers and Mary Hegarty. What determines our navigational abilities? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14:138-146, 2010. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.01.001.
  42. Rolf A. Zwaan and Gabriel A. Radvansky. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2):162-185, 1998. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162.
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact