scholarly journals Visual Attention during Spatial Language Comprehension

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e0115758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Burigo ◽  
Pia Knoeferle
2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1471-1492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Burigo ◽  
Simona Sacchi

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (10) ◽  
pp. 1894-1905
Author(s):  
Corinne A. Bower ◽  
Lindsey Foster ◽  
Laura Zimmermann ◽  
Brian N. Verdine ◽  
Maya Marzouk ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 1735-1753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francie Manhardt ◽  
Aslı Özyürek ◽  
Beyza Sümer ◽  
Kimberley Mulder ◽  
Dilay Z. Karadöller ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny R. Coventry ◽  
Dermot Lynott ◽  
Angelo Cangelosi ◽  
Lynn Monrouxe ◽  
Dan Joyce ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHELE BURIGO ◽  
HOLGER SCHULTHEIS

abstractSpatial descriptions such as “The spider isbehindthe bee” inform the listener about the location of the spider (the located object) in relation to an object whose location is known (i.e., the bee, also called the reference object). If the geometric properties of the reference object have been shown to affect how people use and understand spatial language (Carlson & Van Deman, 2008; Carlson-Radvansky & Irwin, 1994), the geometric features carried by the located object have been deemed irrelevant for spatial language (Landau, 1996; Talmy, 1983). This view on the (ir)relevance of the located object has been recently questioned by works showing that presenting the located object in misalignment with the reference object has consequences for spatial language understanding (Burigo, Coventry, Cangelosi, & Lynott, 2016; Burigo & Sacchi, 2013). In the reported study we aimed to investigate which geometric properties of the located object affect the apprehension of a spatial description, and to disentangle whether the information concerning its orientation (axis), direction (front/rear), or a combination of the two gives rise to conflict. The outcomes of three placing tasks suggest that only the information concerning the direction of the located object is critical for spatial language use.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber A. Ankowski ◽  
Emily E. Thom ◽  
Catherine M. Sandhofer ◽  
Aaron P. Blaisdell

We examined how spatial language affected search behavior in a landmark spatial search task. In Experiment 1, two- to six-year-old children were trained to find a toy in the center of a square array of four identical landmarks. Children heard one of three spatial language cues once during the initial training trial (“here,” “in the middle,” “next to this one”). After search performance reached criterion, children received a probe test trial in which the landmark array was expanded. In Experiment 2, two- to four-year-old children participated in the search task and also completed a language comprehension task. Results revealed that children’s spatial language comprehension scores and spatial language cues heard during training trials were related to children’s performance in the search task.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document