Spatial prepositions and vague quantifiers: Implementing the functional geometric framework

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science)

Volumn 3343, Issue , 2005, Pages 98-110

  Coventry, Kenny R ^a   Cangelosi, Angelo ^a   Rajapakse, Rohanna ^a   Bacon, Alison ^a   Newstead, Stephen ^a   Joyce, Dan ^b   Richards, Lynn V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DATA REDUCTION; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

ELMAN NETWORK; EUCLIDEAN SPACE; GEOMETRIC FRAMEWORKS; SPATIAL PREPOSITIONS;

GEOMETRICAL OPTICS;

EID: 26444518701     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-32255-9_6     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K. & Rao, R.P.N. (1997) Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 20, 723-767.
2. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
3. Cangelosi (in press). Grounding symbols in perceptual and sensorimotor categories: Connectionist and embodied approaches. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds), Categorization in Cognitive Science, Elsevier.
4. Cangelosi A., Greco A. & Harnad S. (2000). From robotic toil to symbolic theft: Grounding transfer from entry-level to higher-level categories. Connection Science, 12(2), 143-162.
5. Carlson-Radvansky, L.A., Covey, E. S. & Lattanzi, K. M. (1999). "What" effects on "where": Functional influences on spatial relations. Psychological Science, 10(6), 516-521.
6. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1996). The influence of functional relations on spatial term selection. Psychological Science, 7, 56-60.
7. Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Tang, Z. (2000). Functional influences on orienting a reference frame. Memory & Cognition, 28, 812-820.
8. Coventry, K. R. (1998). Spatial prepositions, functional relations and lexical specification. In P. Olivier and K.-P. Gapp (Eds.) Representation and Processing of Spatial Expressions, (pp. 247-262). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Coventry K.R., Cangelosi A. et al. (in submission). Spatial language and perceptual symbol systems: Implementing the functional geometric framework.
10. Coventry, K. R., Carmichael, R. & Garrod, S. C. (1994). Spatial prepositions, object-specific function and task requirements. Journal of Semantics, 11, 289-309.
11. Coventry, K. R. and Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, Seeing and Acting. The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Essays in Cognitive Psychology Series.
12. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (in press). Spatial prepositions and the functional geometric framework. Towards a classification of extra-geometric influences. In L. A. Carlson, & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford University Press.
13. Coventry, K. R. & Mather, G. (2002). The real story of 'over'?. In K. R. Coventry & P. Olivier (Eds.), Spatial Language: Cognitive and Computational Aspects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
14. Coventry, K. R. & Prat-Sala, M. (2001). Object-specific function, geometry and the comprehension of 'in' and 'on'. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 509-528.
15. Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M. & Richards, L. V. (2001). The interplay between geometry and function in the comprehension of 'over', 'under', 'above' and 'below'. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 376-398.
16. Deco, G. and T.S. Lee (2002) A Unified Model of Spatial and Object Attention Based on Inter-cortical Biased Competition. Neurocomputing: An international journal, 44-46, 775-781.
17. Edelman, S. (1999). Representation and Recognition in Vision. MIT Press, 1999.
18. Edelman, S. (2002). Constraining the Neural Representation of the Visual World. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 125-131
19. Elman, J.L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179-211
20. Feist, M.I., & Gentner, D. (1998). On Plates, Bowls, and Dishes: Factors in the Use of English 'in' and 'on'. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 345-349.
21. Ferenz, K. S. (2000). The role of nongeometric information in spatial language. PhD Thesis, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
22. Freyd, J., Pantzer, T., & Cheng, J. (1988). Representing statics as forces in equilibrium. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 395-407.
23. Gapp, K. P. (1995). Angle, distance, shape and their relationship to projective relations. In J. D. Moore & J. F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 112-117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
24. Garrod, S., Ferrier, G., & Campbell, S. (1999). In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition, 72, 167-189.
25. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(1), 1-55.
26. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 555-565.
27. Grush, R. (in press). The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
28. Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and Spatial Cognition. An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Hormann, H. (1983). Then calculating listener, or how many are einige, mehrere and ein paar (some, several and a few). In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A, von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin; De Gruyter.
30. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(2), 187-245.
31. Jeannerod, M.(2001) Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neurolmage, 14, S103-S109.
32. Joyce D., Richards L., Cangelosi A., Coventry K.R. (2002), Object representation-by-fragments in the visual system: A neurocomputational model. In L. Wang, J.C. Rajapakse, K. Fukushima, S.Y. Lee, X. Yao (Eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing (ICONP02) IEEE Press, Singapore.
33. Joyce. D. W., Richards, L. V., Cangelosi, A. & Coventry, K. R. (2003). On the foundations of perceptual symbol systems: Specifying embodied representations via connectionism. In F. Dretje, D. Dorner & H. Schaub (Eds.), The Logic of Cognitive Systems. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, pp147-152. Universitats-Verlag Bamberg, Germany.
34. Landau, B., & Jackendoff, R. (1993). 'What' and 'where' in spatial language and cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 217-265.
35. Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 493-530). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
36. Markman E.M. (1987), How children constrain the possible meanings of words," In Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge University Press.
37. Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (1993). Communicating Quantities. A Psychological Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hove, East Sussex.
38. Newstead, S. E., & Coventry, K. R. (2000). The role of context and functionality in the interpretation of quantifiers. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 243-259.
39. Plunkett, K., Sinha, C., Moller, M.F & Strandsry, O. (1992). Symbol grounding or the emergence of symbols? Vocabulary grouth in children and a connectionist net. Connection Science, 4(3-4), 293-312.
40. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
41. Regier, T., & Carlson, L.A. (2001) Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 273-298.
42. Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Physical imagery: Kinematic versus dynamic models. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 433-464.
43. Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick, & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial Orientation: Theory, research and application, (pp. 225-282). New York: Plenum Press.
44. Ullman, S. (1984). Visual routines. Cognition, 18, 97-159.
45. Ullman, S. (1996). High-level Vision. Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
46. Ungderleider, I, & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. Ingle, M. Goodale, & R. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of Visual Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47. Williamson J.R. (1996). "Gaussian ARTMAP: A Neural Network for Fast Incremental Learning of Noisy Multidimensional Maps", Neural Networks, 9(5), 881-897.
48. Zee, E. van der, & Watson, M. (in press). Between function and space: How functional and spatial features determine the comprehension of "between". In L. A. Carlson, & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford University Press.