Spatial representation across species: geometry, language, and maps

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 12-19

  Landau, Barbara ^a   Lakusta, Laura ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MONTCLAIR STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN DAMAGE; BRAIN DISEASE; BRAIN NERVE CELL; BRAIN REGION; COGNITION; GEOMETRY; HIPPOCAMPUS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LOCOMOTION; NERVOUS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT; NONHUMAN; PARIETAL LOBE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; WILLIAMS BEUREN SYNDROME; WORKING MEMORY;

ADULT; ANIMALS; BRAIN; CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; COGNITION; HIPPOCAMPUS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MAPS AS TOPIC; MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS; ORIENTATION; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

EID: 67649382967     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.02.001     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Fodor J.A. The Modularity of Mind (1983), MIT Press
2. Cheng K. A purely geometric module in the rat's spatial representation. Cognition 23 (1986) 149-178
3. Gallistel R. The Organization of Learning (1990), MIT Press
4. Hermer L., and Spelke E. Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation. Cognition 61 (1996) 195-232
5. Vallortigara G., Zanforlin M., and Pasti G. Geometric modules in animals' spatial representations: a test with chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus). J Comp Psychol 104 (1990) 248-254
6. Sovrano V.A., Bisazza A., and Vallortigara G. How fish do geometry in large and in small spaces. Anim Cogn 10 (2007) 47-54
7. Gouteux S., Thinus-Blanc C., and Vauclair J. Rhesus monkeys use geometric and nongeometric information during a reorientation task. J Exp Psychol: Gen 130 (2001) 505-519
8. Kelly D.M., Spetch M.L., and Heth C.D. Pigeons' encoding of geometric and featural properties of a spatial environment. J Comp Psychol 112 (1998) 259-269
9. Hermer L., and Spelke E. A geometric process for spatial representation in young children. Nature 370 (1994) 57-59
10. Learmonth A.E., Newcombe N.S., and Huttenlocher J. Toddlers' use of metric information and landmarks to reorient. J Exp Child Psychol 80 (2001) 225-244
11. Newcombe N., and Ratliff K. Explaining the development of spatial reorientation: modularity-plus-language versus the emergence of adaptive combination. In: Plumert J., and Spencer J. (Eds). The Emerging Spatial Mind (2007), Oxford University Press 53-76. A review of evidence from humans and other species on reorientation, and presentation of the adaptive combination hypothesis, an alternative to modularity.
12. Chianetti C., and Vallortigara G. Is there an innate geometric module? Effects of experience with angular geometric cues on spatial re-orientation based on the shape of the environment. Anim Cognition 11 (2008) 139-146. This study provides compelling evidence for an innate geometric system. Chicks were reared in a rectangular or circular-shaped environment and then placed in a rectangular shaped environment, with salient featural cues, where they underwent a reorientation task. Both groups of chicks showed that they spontaneously encoded the geometry, suggesting that the experience with particular geometric properties of layouts is not necessary for later geometric encoding.
13. Gouteux S., Vauclair J., and Thinus-Blanc C. Reorientation in a small-scale environment by 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. Cogn Dev 16 (2001) 853-869
14. Hupbach A., and Nadel L. Reorientation in a rhombic environment: no evidence for an encapsulated geometric module. Cogn Dev 20 (2005) 279-302
15. Huttenlocher J., and Vasilyeva M. How toddlers represent enclosed spaces. Cogn Sci 27 (2003) 749-766
16. Lourenco S.F., and Huttenlocher J. How do young children determine location? Evidence from disorientation tasks. Cognition 100 (2006) 511-529
17. Lee S.A., and Spelke E.S. Children's use of geometry for reorientation. Dev Sci 11 (2008) 743-749. This study explores the conditions under which humans use geometry to reorient. Four-year-old children used the geometry of the environment to reorient when extended, three-dimensional, 30 cm high surfaces defined the shape of the room. Children did not reorient using geometry when the shape of the room was defined by two-dimensional lines on the floor or by several large, stable columns.
18. Huttenlocher J., and Lourenco S.F. Coding location in enclosed spaces: is geometry the principle?. Dev Sci 10 (2007) 741-746. Eighteen-month to 24-month-old-children performed a reorientation task in a square room. When the adjoining walls had circles of different sizes, children searched the correct corner where the toy was hidden (34.4%) and the corner diagonally opposite the correct corner (36.5%). However, this pattern was not found when the adjoining walls had different colors (red and blue), or when two of the walls were plain and two were patterned. The authors conclude that relative features on the same scale, rather than geometry per se, may guide reorientation.
19. McGregor A., Hayward A.J., Pearce J.M., and Good M.A. Hippocampal lesions disrupt navigation based on the shape of the environment. Behav Neurosci 118 (2004) 1011-1021
20. Vargas J.P., Petruso E.J., and Bingman V.P. Hippocampal formation is required for geometric navigation in pigeons. Eur J Neurosci 20 (2004) 1937-1944
21. Jones P.M., Pearce J.M., Davies V.J., Good M.A., and McGregor A. Impaired processing of local geometric features during navigation in a water maze following hippocampal lesions in rats. Behav Neurosci 121 (2007) 1258-1271. When performing a navigation task to a hidden goal, rats with hippocampal lesions were impaired at discriminating a right-angle corner from its mirror reversal corner and were impaired at discriminating a short versus long wall. However, they were able to use salient features (an acute angle; a colored wall) that highlighted the direction of search.
22. Nardi D., and Bingman V.P. Asymmetrical participation of the left and right hippocampus for representing environmental geometry in homing pigeons. Behav Brain Res 178 (2007) 160-171
23. Vallortigara G., Pagni P., and Sovrano V.A. Separate geometric and non-geometric modules for spatial reorientation: evidence from a lopsided animal brain. J Cogn Neurosci 16 (2004) 390-400
24. Tommasi L., Gagliardo A., Andrew R.J., and Vallortigara G. Separate processing mechanisms for encoding geometric and landmark information in the avian hippocampus. Eur J Neurosci 17 (2003) 1695-1702
25. Epstein R., and Kanwisher N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 392 (1998) 598-601
26. O'Keefe J., and Nadel L. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (1978), Clarendon
27. Lever C., Wills T., Cacucci F., Burgess N., and O'Keefe J. Long-term plasticity in hippocampal place-cell representation of environmental geometry. Nature 416 (2002) 90-94
28. Hafting T., Fyhn M., Molden S., Moser M.B., and Moser E.I. Microstructure of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature 436 (2005) 801-806
29. Jeffery K.J., and Burgess N. A metric for the cognitive map: found at last?. Trends Cogn Sci 10 (2006) 1-3
30. Hayman R.M., and Jeffery K.J. How heterogeneous place cell responding arises from homogenous grids - a contextual gating hypothesis. Hippocampus 18 (2008) 1301-1313
31. Aguirre G.K., and D'Esposito M. Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy. Brain 122 (1999) 1613-1628
32. Bohbot V.D., Allen J.J.B., and Nadel L. Memory deficits characterized by patterns of lesions to the hippocampus and parahippocampal cortex. Ann N Y Acad Sci 911 (2000) 355-368
33. Iaria G., Lanyon L.J., Fox C.J., Giaschi D., and Barton J.J.S. Navigational skills correlate with hippocampal fractional anisotropy in humans. Hippocampus 18 (2008) 335-339
34. Iaria G., Bogod N., Fox C.J., and Barton J.J.S. Developmental topographical disorientation: case one. Neuropsychologia 47 (2009) 30-40
35. Meyer-Lindenberg A., Kohn P., Mervis C.B., Kippenhan J.S., Olsen R.K., Morris C.A., and Berman K.F. Neural basis of genetically determined visuospatial construction deficit in Williams Syndrome. Neuron 43 (2004) 623-631
36. Meyer-Lindenberg A., Mervis C.B., Sarpal D., Koch P., Steele S., Kohn P., Marenco S., Morris C.A., Das S., Kippenhan S., et al. Functional, structural, and metabolic abnormalities of the hippocampal formation in Williams syndrome. J Clin Invest 115 (2005) 1888-1895
37. Landau B. The organization and development of spatial cognition: insights from Williams syndrome. In: Burack J. (Ed). Handbook of Intellectual Disabilities and Development (2009), Oxford University Press. A proposal for the organization of spatial cognition, its development in humans, and its susceptibility to impairment, using the framework of the dorsal and ventral streams of the brain.
38. Guariglia C., Coriale G., and Cosentino T. TENS modulates spatial reorientation in neglect patients. Neuroreport 11 (2000) 1945-1948
39. Osborne L.R. Molecular basis of a multisystem disorder. In: Morris C.A., Lenhoff H.M., and Wang P.P. (Eds). Williams-Beuren Syndrome: Research, Evaluation, and Treatment (2006), JHU Press 18-58
40. Learmonth A.E., Nadel L., and Newcombe N.S. Children's use of landmarks: implications for modularity theory. Psychol Sci 13 (2002) 337-341
41. Sovrano V.A., and Vallortigara G. Dissecting the geometric module: a sense linkage for metric and landmark information in animals' spatial reorientation. Psychol Sci 17 (2006) 616-621. This paper explores effects of space size observed in nonhuman animals that are similar to those observed in human children, and proposes a hypothesis to explain the effects of space size across both species.
42. Hermer-Vazquez L., Spelke E., and Katsnelson A. Source of flexibility in human cognition: dual task studies of space and language. Cogn Psychol 39 (1999) 3-36
43. Carruthers P. The cognitive functions of language. Behav Brain Sci 25 (2002) 657-726
44. Hermer-Vazquez L., Moffet A., and Munkholm P. Language, space, and the development of cognitive flexibility in humans: the case of two spatial memory tasks. Cognition 79 (2001) 263-299
45. Sovrano V.A., Bisazza A., and Vallortigara G. Modularity and spatial reorientation in a simple mind: encoding of geometric and nongeometric properties of a spatial environment by fish. Cognition 85 (2002) B51-B59
46. Ratcliff K.R., and Newcombe N.S. Is language necessary for human spatial reorientation? Reconsidering evidence from dual task paradigms. Cogn Psychol 56 (2008) 142-163. In Experiment 1, adults performed a reorientation task in a rectangular room with one colored wall, while undergoing verbal interference. Adults who received vague task instructions showed impaired performance, while those that received explicit task instructions searched the correct corner. In Experiment 2, nonverbal, spatial interference (visualization task) also impaired performance. The authors argue that spatial language is not necessary for the use of features when reorienting.
47. Hupbach A., Hardt O., Nadel L., and Bohbot V.D. Spatial reorientation: effects of verbal and spatial shadowing. Spatial Cogn Comput 7 (2007) 213-226
48. Landau B., Dessalegn B., and Goldberg A. Language and space: momentary interactions. In: Evans V., Bergen B., and Zinken J. (Eds). Language, Cognition, and Space: The State of the Art and New Directions. Advances in Cognitive Linguistics Series (2008), Equinox Publishing. Reviews a range of evidence supporting the view that language plays a momentary role in modulating visual and spatial representations.
49. Dessalegn B., and Landau B. More than meets the eye: The role of language in binding visual properties. Psychol Sci 19 (2008) 189-195. This study provides an alternative to strong Whorfian and non-Whorfian claims. The authors show that language can exert powerful, yet momentary, effects on visual-spatial representations. See text for details.
50. Treisman A., and Gelade G. A feature integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol 12 (1980) 97-136
51. Treisman A., and Schmidt H. Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cogn Psychol 14 (1982) 107-141
52. Arguin M., Joanette Y., and Cavanagh P. Visual search for feature and conjunction targets with an attention deficit. J Cogn Neurosci 5 (2003) 436-452
53. Talmy L. How language structures space. In: Pick H., and Acredolo L. (Eds). Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application (1983), Plenum Press 225-282
54. Gleitman L.R., Gleitman H., Miller C., and Ostrin R. Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition 58 (1996) 321-376
55. Spivey M.J., Tyler M.J., Eberhard K.M., and Tanenhaus M.K. Linguistically mediated visual search. Psychol Sci 12 (2001) 282-286
56. Shusterman A., and Spelke E. Language and the development of spatial reasoning. In: Carruthers P., Laurence S., and Stich S. (Eds). The Structure of the Innate Mind (2005), Oxford University Press
57. Gilbert A.L., Regier T., Kay P., and Ivry R.B. Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103 (2006) 489-494
58. Franklin A., Drivonikou G.V., Bevis L., Davies I.R.L., Kay P., and Regier T. Categorical perception of color is lateralized to the right hemisphere in infants, but to the left hemisphere in adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (2008) 3221-3225. By showing different category effect patterns for adults and prelinguistic infants, this paper provides strong evidence that language affects color perception. Adults discriminate between-category colors faster than within category colors and this effect is strongest when the stimuli are presented in the right visual field (left hemisphere processing). However, for four-month to six-month-old infants, the advantage for between-category discrimination is greater for the left visual field (right hemisphere processing).
59. Franklin A., Drivonikou G.V., Clifford A., Kay P., Regier T., and Davies I.R.L. Lateralization of categorical perception of color changes with color term acquisition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 (2008) 18221-18225. Follow-up to their earlier study on lateralization, showing that this changes developmentally as children acquire color terms.
60. Liben L., and Myers L. Developmental changes in children's understanding of maps: What when, and how?. In: Plumert J., and Spencer J. (Eds). The Emerging Spatial Mind (2007), Oxford University Press 193-218. Review of the cognitive requirements for map use and the developmental changes in children's understanding of these.
61. DeLoache J. Early understanding and use of symbols: the model model. Curr Perspect Psychol Sci 4 (1995) 109-113
62. Landau B. Early map use as an unlearned ability. Cognition 22 (1986) 201-223
63. Huttenlocher J., Newcombe N., and Vasilyeva M. Spatial scaling in young children. Psychol Sci 10 (1999) 393-398
64. Shusterman A, Lee SA, Spelke ES: Young children's spontaneous use of geometry in maps. Dev Sci 2008, 11:F1-F7. This study is the first to show that, without training, four-year-old children use the geometry in a map to guide their search for a hidden object. Children used landmarks, angle, and distance information, however they did not use left-right sense information, as shown by their tendencies to confuse the two geometrically equivalent corners in an isosceles triangle.
65. Premack D., and Premack A. The Mind of an Ape (1983), W.W. Norton
66. Kuhlmeier V., and Boysen S. The effect of response contingencies on scale model task performance by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 115 (2001) 300-306
67. Huttenlocher J., Vasilyeva M., Newcombe N., and Duffy S. Developing symbolic capacity one step at a time. Cognition 106 (2008) 1-12
68. Dehaene S., Izard V., Pica P., and Spelke E.S. Core knowledge of geometry in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 311 (2006) 381-384. Several experiments examined the use of geometric representations by individuals from a remote culture having little to no experience with symbolic devices. Children older than 6 and adults had no difficulty interpreting and using simple maps to guide search in an adjacent space.
69. Bluestein M., and Acredolo L. Developmental changes in map reading skills. Child Dev 50 (1979) 691-697