Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T18:07:37.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A cognitive strategy for structuring space

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Vinod Goel
Vinod Goel
Affiliation:
Department of Architecture & Institute of Cognitive Studies, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A spatial reasoning system must be able to represent and manipulate the location of objects in its world model. There are two general schemes for doing this—absolute symbolic schemes based on an independent coordinate system, and relative schemes which reference objects in relation to other objects of known location. This paper is concerned strictly with the latter.

Given a relative scheme, there are several possible strategies for segmenting space. Two such strategies are identified and discussed. The first, called the situation-specific strategy is the one currently being explored and employed in most spatial reasoning systems. The second, here referred to as the general-purpose or cognitive strategy is the one used by the human cognitive system. It is suggested that while both strategies have outstanding strengths and weakness, the latter holds greater potential for achieving maximal coverage with minimal resources. The paper then proceeds to describe the structure of cognitive models of locative space and to specify how such models can be built from 3-D geometric models.

This description is based on a cognitively motivated implementation called SEE-TELL. SEE-TELL takes as its input a 3-D geometric model and outputs a proposition of the form locative (referent, relatum). The function which maps the input to the output is a two part heuristic procedure. The first part determines the referent and relatum and the second part assigns the locative predicate. The system can assign the predicates on, right-of/left-of, and front-of/back-of. On and right-of/left-of are, respectively, illustrative of invariant and variant locatives. Front-of/back-of allows for a conflict between an ego/observer and a canonical object. These three situations are thought to cover the different classes of problems that can arise in assigning any locative.

The paper concludes by summarizing the findings, identifying the shortcomings and limitations, and making suggestions for future work.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , May 1988 , pp. 89 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballard, D. H. and Brown, C. M. 1982. Computer Vision. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Boggess, L. C. 1979. Computational interpretation of English spatial prepositions. Technical Report T-75, Coordinated Science Laboratory, University of Illinois-Urbana.Google Scholar
Conklin, E. J., Ehrlich, K. and McDonald, D. D. 1983. An empirical investigation of visual salience and its role in text generation. Cognition and Brain Theory 6, 197–225.Google Scholar
Goel, V. 1986. Assigning locative prepositions to the spatial relations implicit in 3-D geometrical models of objects and scenes. Masters thesis, F.E.S., York University.Google Scholar
Herskovits, A. 1984. Comprehension and production of locatives. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report No. 20.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1978. Representing visual information—a computational approach. In Hanson, A. R and Riseman, E. M. (eds), Computer Vision Systems. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1979. Representing and computing visual information. In Winston, P. H. and Brown, R. H. (eds), Artificial Intelligence: An MIT Perspective, Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, D. R. and Bialystok, E 1983. Spatial Cognition: The Structure and Development of Mental Representations of Spatial Relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. 1975. Visual perception and world knowledge: notes on a model of sensory-cognitive interaction. In Norman, D. A and Rumelhart, D. E. (eds), Explorations in Cognition. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1983. Search and reasoning in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence. 21, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1983. How language structures space. In Pick, H. L. and Acredolo, L. P. (eds), Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1987. The relation of grammar to cognition. Berkeley Cognitive Science Program.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, R. F. 1987. The representation and manipulation of geometric information in a knowledge based expert system. Thesis proposal, Department of Architecture, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar