Literature DB >> 30560470

Bayesian average or truncation at boundaries? The mechanisms underlying categorical bias in spatial memory.

Cristina Sampaio1, Ranxiao Frances Wang2.   

Abstract

Spatial memory is often biased by various factors, such as the region a target belongs to, which can be defined based on physical, perceptual, or implicit boundaries. In the typical dot-localization task first introduced by Huttenlocher, Hedges, and Duncan (Psychological Review 98: 352-376, 1991), individuals normally divide the task space into four quadrants delineated at the Cartesian axes (forming "default categories") and show systematic bias in target localization toward the center of the category. At least two mechanisms have been proposed to account for these categorical biases, namely (a) weighted-average of a metric representation and the category prototype representation and (b) truncation of an un-biased metric representation at the category boundary. Both models can account for these findings and cannot be differentiated by existing research methods. Using a new distribution analysis, the current study sought to differentiate between these two models. Participants viewed a dot inside a circle and recalled its location after a delay either with the same blank circle (i.e., the standard dot-in-circle paradigm) or when an alternative V-shaped category boundary was visually presented at retrieval. The data from three experiments showed symmetrical distribution of the errors that shifted toward the category center when people primarily used the default category, supporting the weighted-average model. In contrast, when people primarily used the alternative category, the errors showed a highly skewed distribution, more consistent with the truncation model. Overall, these results provided the first experimental evidence for both mechanisms separately.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Category bias; Category-adjustment model; Spatial cognition; Spatial memory; Spatial memory bias

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30560470     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-018-0884-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  21 in total

1.  Reasoning about geography.

Authors:  A Friedman; N R Brown
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-06

2.  A category adjustment approach to memory for spatial location in natural scenes.

Authors:  Mark P Holden; Kim M Curby; Nora S Newcombe; Thomas F Shipley
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory.

Authors:  T P McNamara; J K Hardy; S C Hirtle
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 4.  Theories of spatial representations and reference frames: what can configuration errors tell us?

Authors:  Ranxiao Frances Wang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-08

5.  Biases in long-term location memory in the real world.

Authors:  Cristina Sampaio; Brittany A Cardwell
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Mental representations of spatial relations.

Authors:  T P McNamara
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Barrier effects in the cognitive maps of children and adults.

Authors:  N Newcombe; L S Liben
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1982-08

8.  Delay-induced bias in children's memory for location.

Authors:  Alycia M Hund; Jodie M Plumert
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2002 May-Jun

9.  The stability and flexibility of spatial categories.

Authors:  Alycia M Hund; Jodie M Plumert
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Carving up space at imaginary joints: can people mentally impose arbitrary spatial category boundaries?

Authors:  Vanessa R Simmering; John P Spencer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.332

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.