Attentional Distribution and Spatial Language
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.
KeywordsFunction Extension Functional Part Spatial Term Angular Component Attentional Distribution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.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)Google Scholar
- 3.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)Google Scholar
- 11.Coventry, K.R., Garrod, S.C.: Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. Psychology Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
- 14.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)Google Scholar
- 16.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)Google Scholar
- 20.Schultheis, H., Singhaniya, A., Chaplot, D.S.: Comparing Model Comparison Methods. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2013)Google Scholar