Memory & Cognition

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 473–484 | Cite as

Bayesian average or truncation at boundaries? The mechanisms underlying categorical bias in spatial memory

  • Cristina SampaioEmail author
  • Ranxiao Frances Wang


Spatial memory is often biased by various factors, such as the region a target belongs to, which can be defined based on physical, perceptual, or implicit boundaries. In the typical dot-localization task first introduced by Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Duncan (Psychological Review 98: 352-376, 1991), individuals normally divide the task space into four quadrants delineated at the Cartesian axes (forming “default categories”) and show systematic bias in target localization toward the center of the category. At least two mechanisms have been proposed to account for these categorical biases, namely (a) weighted-average of a metric representation and the category prototype representation and (b) truncation of an un-biased metric representation at the category boundary. Both models can account for these findings and cannot be differentiated by existing research methods. Using a new distribution analysis, the current study sought to differentiate between these two models. Participants viewed a dot inside a circle and recalled its location after a delay either with the same blank circle (i.e., the standard dot-in-circle paradigm) or when an alternative V-shaped category boundary was visually presented at retrieval. The data from three experiments showed symmetrical distribution of the errors that shifted toward the category center when people primarily used the default category, supporting the weighted-average model. In contrast, when people primarily used the alternative category, the errors showed a highly skewed distribution, more consistent with the truncation model. Overall, these results provided the first experimental evidence for both mechanisms separately.


Spatial memory Category-adjustment model Category bias Spatial memory bias Spatial cognition 



  1. Allen, G. L. (1981). A developmental perspective on the effects of “subdividing” macrospatial experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 120–132.Google Scholar
  2. Crawford, L. E., & Jones, E. L. (2011). The flexible use of inductive and geometric spatial categories. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1055–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crawford, L.E., Landy, D., Salthouse, T.A. (2016). Spatial working memory capacity predicts bias in estimates of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,42, 1434–1437.Google Scholar
  4. Engebretson, P. H., & Huttenlocher, J. (1996). Bias in spatial location due to categorization: Comment on Tversky and Schiano. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Friedman, A., & Brown, N. R. (2000). Reasoning about geography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition,129, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holden, M.P., Curby, K.M., Newcombe, N.S., & Shipley, T.F. (2010). A category adjustment approach to memory for spatial location in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 36, 590–604.Google Scholar
  7. Hund, A. M., & Plumert, J. M. (2002). Delay-induced bias in children's memory for location. Child Development, 73, 829-840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hund, A. M., & Plumert, J. M. (2005). The stability and flexibility of spatial categories. Cognitive Psychology, 50, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hund, A. M., Plumert, J. M., & Benney, C. (2002). Experiencing nearby locations together in time: The role of spatial-temporal contiguity in children’s memory for location. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 200–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L.V., Corrigan, B, & Crawford, L. E. (2004). Spatial categories and the estimation of location. Cognition, 93, 75-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L.V., Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98, 352–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maki, R. H. (1981). Categorization and distance effects with spatial linear orders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 15–32.Google Scholar
  13. McNamara, T.P. (1986). Mental representations of spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology 18, 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McNamara, T.P., Hardy, J.K., & Hirtle, S.C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 211–227.Google Scholar
  15. Newcombe, N., & Liben, L. S. (1982). Barrier effects in the cognitive maps of children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newcombe, N.S., Huttenlocher, J., Sandberg, E., Lie, E., & Johnson, S. (1999). What do misestimations and asymmetries in spatial judgement indicate about spatial representation? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 986–996.Google Scholar
  17. Sampaio, C. & Cardwell, B.A. (2012) Bias in long-term location memory in the real world. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1865–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sampaio, C., & Wang, R.F. (2010). Overcoming default categorical bias in spatial memory. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sampaio, C., & Wang, R.F. (2012). The temporal locus of the categorical bias in spatial memories. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 781–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sampaio, C., & Wang, R.F. (2017). The cause of category-based distortions in spatial memory: A distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,43, 1988–1992. Google Scholar
  21. Shelton, A. L. & McNamara, T. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 274–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmering, V. R., & Spencer, J. P. (2007). Carving up space at imaginary joints: Can people mentally impose arbitrary spatial category boundaries? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 871–894.Google Scholar
  23. Spencer, J. P., & Hund, A. M. (2002). Prototypes and particulars: Geometric and experience-dependent spatial categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spencer, J. P., & Hund, A. M. (2003). Developmental changes in the relative weighting of geometric and experience-dependent location cues. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, R. F. (2012). Theories of spatial representations and reference frames: What can configuration errors tell us? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 575–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana-ChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations