» Articles » PMID: 9584433

The Representation of Space in Mental Models Derived from Text

Overview
Journal Mem Cognit
Specialty Psychology
Date 1998 May 19
PMID 9584433
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Mental models of text are representations of what the text is about (i.e., situations), rather than representations of the text itself. Many mental model theories propose that mental models, like real situations, are played out in a medium analogous to a Euclidean space so that distance has functional consequences. For example, when one mentally manipulates one element of the representation, one will notice other elements that are spatially close to it, and this will enhance their short-term accessibility. In a test of this noticing hypothesis, participants read texts that described the object-by-object construction of a spatial layout. According to the text, a critical object ended up close to a target object (in the spatial layout) or far from the target object. In neither case, however, was the relation between the critical object and the target object explicitly described in the text. The noticing hypothesis predicts that the accessibility of the target object will be enhanced when the critical object is close to it. We tested this prediction in seven experiments in which we also manipulated the number of objects described, whether the description was accompanied by a diagram, the presentation modality of the description, the number of dimensions in the spatial layout, and the measurement of accessibility. We failed to find consistent support for the noticing hypothesis. The data compel the conclusions that (1) spatial representations can be formed when one is reading, (2) these representations do not support automatic noticing of implicit spatial relations, (3) it is likely that the spatial representation is more topological or functional than Euclidean.

Citing Articles

Examining the role of information integration in the continued influence effect using an event segmentation approach.

Sanderson J, Farrell S, Ecker U PLoS One. 2022; 17(7):e0271566.

PMID: 35849610 PMC: 9292086. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271566.


Sculptors, Architects, and Painters Conceive of Depicted Spaces Differently.

Cialone C, Tenbrink T, Spiers H Cogn Sci. 2017; 42(2):524-553.

PMID: 28656679 PMC: 5873447. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12510.


Causal coherence and the availability of locations and objects during narrative comprehension.

Sundermeier B, van den Broek P, Zwaan R Mem Cognit. 2005; 33(3):462-70.

PMID: 16156181 DOI: 10.3758/bf03193063.


Redescription disembeds relations: evidence from relational transfer and use in problem solving.

Dixon J, Dohn M Mem Cognit. 2004; 31(7):1082-93.

PMID: 14704023 DOI: 10.3758/bf03196129.


An eye-movement-contingent probe paradigm.

Kambe G, Duffy S, Clifton Jr C, Rayner K Psychon Bull Rev. 2003; 10(3):661-6.

PMID: 14620361 DOI: 10.3758/bf03196529.


References
1.
de Vega M . Backward updating of mental models during continuous reading of narratives. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1995; 21(2):373-85. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.21.2.373. View

2.
McNamara T . Mental representations of spatial relations. Cogn Psychol. 1986; 18(1):87-121. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90016-2. View

3.
OBrien E, Albrecht J . Comprehension strategies in the development of a mental model. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992; 18(4):777-84. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.18.4.777. View

4.
Denis M, Cocude M . Structural properties of visual images constructed from poorly or well-structured verbal descriptions. Mem Cognit. 1992; 20(5):497-506. DOI: 10.3758/bf03199582. View

5.
Bush L, Hess U, Wolford G . Transformations for within-subject designs: a Monte Carlo investigation. Psychol Bull. 1993; 113(3):566-79. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.566. View