title: Spatial directions and situation model organization.
abstract: Do spatial directions, such as "to the right," influence the integration and segregation of information into situation models? According to a single-framework hypothesis, spatial location serves as an event framework, and spatial directions serve as relational information within that framework but do not establish separate sublocation frameworks. Alternatively, according to a fragmented-framework hypothesis, spatial directions lead the larger framework to be broken down such that each direction is treated as a separate sublocation, thereby producing retrieval interference. In three experiments, people memorized sentences about objects in locations. The results support the fragmented-framework hypothesis. Control conditions ruled out explanations based on the ease of memorization, retrieval demands, or sentence complexity.
authors.affiliation: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA. gradvans@nd.edu
authors.forename: Gabriel A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: Radvansky
mesh_terms: D001245:Association Learning; D001288:Attention; D032882:Comprehension; D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D008570:Memory, Short-Term; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009949:Orientation; D011340:Problem Solving; D011930:Reaction Time; D011932:Reading; D021641:Recognition, Psychology; D012931:Social Environment
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Sep;24(5):1224-37
references.pmid: 9747531
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 1996 Jun;11(2):258-71
references.pmid: 8795054
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Sep;19(5):1101-14
references.pmid: 8409850
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Jun;129(2):193-219
references.pmid: 10868334
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1986 Jan;18(1):87-121
references.pmid: 3948491
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(9):1607-21
references.pmid: 16516934
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1999 Jan;106(1):89-118
references.pmid: 10197364
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1981 Nov;9(6):560-5
references.pmid: 7329236
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Jul;34(5):1150-6
references.pmid: 17128613
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1998 Mar;123(2):162-85
references.pmid: 9522683
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Dec;128(4):563-79
references.pmid: 10650586
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):478-83
references.pmid: 16235632
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1980 Oct;12(4):447-72
references.pmid: 7418365
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2000 Sep;28(6):987-92
references.pmid: 11105524
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1987 Apr;94(2):148-75
references.pmid: 3575583
references.citation: Memory. 2006 Jul;14(5):614-23
references.pmid: 16754245
references.citation: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2005 Sep;60(5):P276-8
references.pmid: 16131622
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997 Sep;23(5):1233-46
references.pmid: 9293632
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993 Jan;19(1):95-114
references.pmid: 8423436
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1991 Jul;98(3):352-76
references.pmid: 1891523
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2008 Jan 31;46(2):576-94
references.pmid: 18037455
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Sep;17(5):940-53
references.pmid: 1834775
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Jun;128(2):198-206
references.pmid: 10406105
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1978 Oct;10(4):422-37
references.pmid: 699514