Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Typicality Effects in the Categorization of Spatial Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Spatial Cognition

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1404))

Abstract

The chapter provides an overview of linguistic, neuropsychological and experimental psychological approaches and findings that support the idea that spatial relation categories are analog, overlapping, internally structured categories based on prototype comparison and with fuzzy boundaries. The main focus is on viewpoint dependent relations (direction relations) in visuospatial cognition. The notion of a frame of reference in spatial cognition is related to the more general concept of a frame of reference in categorization. Categorization constitutes the bridge between spatial vision and spatial language. For visual space, a spatial framework is proposed that is based on perceptually salient directions which act as standard values in relation to which object relations can be judged.

This work was supported by the Special Research Group “Situated Artificial Communicators” (SFB 360) of the German Science Foundation (DFG), project B1: “Interaction of visual and linguistic information processing”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abella, A. & Kender, J. R. (1993). Qualitatively describing objects using spatial prepositions. Proceedings of AAAI-93, 536–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alba, J. W. & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 629–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms. Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthoz, A. (1991). Reference frames for the perception and control of movement. In J. Paillard (Ed.), Brain and space (pp. 81–111). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Perceptual categories in vision and audition. In S. Harnad (Ed.), Categorical perception. The groundwork of cognition (pp. 287–300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, J., Dall’Alba, G., Martin, E., Laurillard, D., Marton, F., Masters, G., Ramsden, P., Stephanou, A. & Walsh, E. (1992). Displacement, velocity, and frames of reference: Phenomenographic studies of students’ understanding and some implications for teaching and assessment. American Journal of Physics, 60, 262–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, B. & Pears, J. (1993). Introduction: Frames of reference. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation (pp. 25–30). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson-Radvansky, L. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7, 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 27–63) Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. & Henn, V. (eds.). (1988). Representation of three-dimensional space in the vistibular, oculomotor, and visual systems. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R. & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function, and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, N., Henkel, L. A. & Zangas, T. (1995). Parsing surrounding space into regions. Memory and Cognition, 23, 397–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhr, T., Socher, G., Scheering, C. & Sagerer, G. (1995). A three-dimensional spatial model for the interpretation of image data. In P. L. Olivier (Ed.), IJCAI-95 Workshop on Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions (pp. 93–102), Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei, G. (1632). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, Ptolemaic and Copernican. Berkeley: University of California (Transl., 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gapp, K. (1997). Objektlokalisation. Ein System zur sprachlichen Raumbeschreibung. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, W. (1992). Head-centric visual localization with lateral body tilt. Vision Research, 32, 669–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, W. G. & Tarr, M. J. (1995). Spatial language and spatial representation. Cognition 55, 39–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. (1990). Vor, hinter, rechts und links: das 6H-Modell. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 78, 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T. & Grabowski, J. (1994). Sprechen. Psychologie der Sprachproduktion. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. (1959). Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat’s striate cortex. Journal of Physiology, 148, 574–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P., Berlin, B. & Merrifield, W. (1991). Biocultural implications of systems of color naming. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1, 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. K. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 54, 610–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, J. (1993). Kant and the sea-horse: An essay in the neurophilosophy of space. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation (pp. 43–64). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, B. & Jackendoff, R. (1993). “What” and “where” in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 217–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lashley, K. S. (1938). The mechanism of vision: XV. Preliminary studies of the rats’ capacity for detailed vision. Journal of General Psychology, 18, 123–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 1015–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Philbeck, J. W. & Fukusima, S. S. (1996). Visual perception of location and distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 72–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, J. S. & Legge, G. E. (1997). Binocular visual direction: Reply to Banks, van Ee & Backus (1997). Vision Research, 37, 1610–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. T. (1976). Theory and research on the development of environmental knowing. In G. T. Moore & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Environmental knowing (pp. 138–164). Stroudsburg, Penn.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, J. C. & Taylor, M. M. (1958). Effects of orientation of the visibility of a fine line. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 48, 628–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, J. C. & Taylor, M.M. (1959). Effect of length on the visibility of a fine line. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 49, 898–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, S. E. (1977). Hierarchical structure in perceptual representation. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 441–474.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 382–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regier, T. (1995). A model of the human capacity for categorizing spatial relations. Cognitive linguistics, 6, 63–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential. Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Retz-Schmidt, G. (1988). Various views on spatial prepositions. AI magazine, 9, 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. J. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J. & Smith, E. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaior, 14, 665–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rock, I. (1973). Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975a). The nature of mental codes for color categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975b). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–49). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., Simpson, C. & Miller, R. S. (1976). Structural bases of typicality effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schober, M. F. (1993). Spatial perspective taking in conversation. Cognition, 47, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, J. E. (1977). Facial expressions of the neonate infant indicating the hedonics of food-related chemical stimuli. In J. M. Weiffenbach (Ed.), Taste and development. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language (pp. 625–649). Stanford/CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R., Lusky, M. & Morrison, S. (1992). A comparison of generalization functions and frame reference effects in different training paradigms. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 529–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial propositions: A case study from French. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorwerg, C. (1997). Kategorisierung von Richtungsrelationen. In E. van der Meer et al. (Eds.), Experimentelle Psychologie. Abstracts der 39. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen (p. 225). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorwerg, C. & Rickheit, G. (in prep.). Richtungsausdrücke und Heckenbildung beim sprachlichen Lokalisieren von Objekten im visuellen Raum. (Direction terms and hedges in verbal localisations of objects in visual space)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorwerg, C., Socher, G., Fuhr, T., Sagerer, G. & Rickheit, G. (1997). Projective relations for 3D space: Computational model, application, and psychological evaluation. Proceedings of AAAI-97 (pp. 159–164). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press / The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1925a). Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen von Bewegung. In M. Wertheimer, Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie (pp. 1–105). Erlangen: Verlag der Philosophischen Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, M. (1925b). Über das Denken der Naturvölker, Zahlen und Zahlgebilde. In M. Wertheimer, Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie (pp. 106–163). Erlangen: Verlag der Philosophischen Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SFB 360 „Situierte Künstliche Kommunikatoren“, Universität Bielefeld, Postfach 100131, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Constanze Vorwerg & Gert Rickheit

Authors
  1. Constanze Vorwerg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gert Rickheit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Hamburg, Vogt-Kölln-Straße 30, D-22527, Hamburg, Germany

    Christian Freksa  & Christopher Habel  & 

  2. Fachbereich Psychologie, Universität Trier, D-54286, Trier, Germany

    Karl F. Wender

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vorwerg, C., Rickheit, G. (1998). Typicality Effects in the Categorization of Spatial Relations. In: Freksa, C., Habel, C., Wender, K.F. (eds) Spatial Cognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1404. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69342-4_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-69342-4_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64603-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69342-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation