Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Spatial language and spatial representation: a cross-linguistic comparison.

E Munnich1, B Landau, B A Dosher

  • 1Department of Psychology, 220 Wolf Hall, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA. emunnich@udel.edu

Cognition
|August 3, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Object perception and object naming in early development.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2011
Same author

Characterizing the spatial-frequency sensitivity of perceptual templates.

Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision·2001
Same author

Noise exclusion in spatial attention.

Psychological science·2001
Same author

Spatial attention: different mechanisms for central and peripheral temporal precues?

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2000
Same author

Attention mechanisms for multi-location first- and second-order motion perception.

Vision research·2000
Same author

Mechanisms of perceptual attention in precuing of location.

Vision research·2000
Same journal

Blurred lines or clear boundaries? Synchrony and social dominance shape domain-specific self-other processing.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Knowability predicts curiosity and learning.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Throwing good effort after bad: Evidence for a sunk-cost effect in cognitive effort-based decision-making.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Cross-linguistic differences in incremental planning under uncertainty.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Sensory attenuation scales with the strength of action-outcome coupling: A psychophysical study.

Cognition·2026
Same journal

Children's narrow learning bottleneck accelerates the emergence of statistical properties of language.

Cognition·2026
See all related articles

Spatial language and memory share foundational properties but remain partially independent across languages and tasks. Cross-linguistic differences in spatial language did not impact non-linguistic spatial memory encoding.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Science
  • Linguistics
  • Psychology

Background:

  • Spatial language and spatial memory are crucial for navigating the environment.
  • Cross-linguistic studies reveal variations in how languages encode spatial relationships.
  • Understanding the interplay between language and non-linguistic cognition is key.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the relationship between spatial language and spatial memory.
  • To compare how English, Japanese, and Korean speakers organize and recall spatial locations.
  • To determine if linguistic differences in spatial representation influence spatial memory.

Main Methods:

  • Participants completed two language tasks (naming spatial locations) and two memory tasks.
  • Spatial organization was analyzed based on axial structure and contact/support properties.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Performance was compared across native speakers of English, Japanese, and Korean.

    • Main Results:

    • Language tasks showed cross-linguistic similarities in axial structure but differences in contact/support organization.
    • Memory tasks revealed identical organization for both axial structure and contact/support across all language groups.
    • No straightforward isomorphism was found between spatial language and spatial memory systems.

    Conclusions:

    • Spatial language and memory utilize similar spatial properties, suggesting shared foundational mechanisms.
    • These cognitive systems demonstrate partial independence, with variations across languages and tasks.
    • Functional pressures from navigating the world may drive the emergence of similar linguistic and non-linguistic spatial representations.