The format(s) of spatial representation(s)
Relevant projects:
Yousif, S. R. and McDougle, S. D. (Under review). Oblique biases: An instance of domain-and modality-general spatial representation.
Yousif, S. R. (2022). Redundancy and reducibility in the formats of spatial representations. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Yousif, S. R. and Keil, F. C. (2021). The shape of space: Evidence for spontaneous but flexible use of polar coordinates in visuospatial representations. Psychological Science. 32. 573-586.
Yousif, S. R., Rosenberg, M. D., and Keil, F. C. (2021). Using space to remember: Short-term spatial structure spontaneously improves working memory. Cognition, 214, 104748.
Yousif, S. R. and Keil, F. C. (2021). How we see area and why it matters. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25, 554-557.
Yousif, S. R., Chen, Y. C., and Scholl, B. J. (2020). Systematic angular biases in the representation of visual space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 3124-3143.
The Shape of Space: Evidence for Spontaneous but Flexible Use of Polar Coordinates in Visuospatial Representations (Psychological Science)
What is the format of spatial representation? In mathematics, we often conceive of two primary ways of representing 2D space, Cartesian coordinates, which capture horizontal and vertical relations, and polar coordinates, which capture angle and distance relations. Do either of these two coordinate systems play a representational role in the human mind? Six experiments, using a simple visual-matching paradigm, show that (a) representational format is recoverable from the errors that observers make in simple spatial tasks, (b) human-made errors spontaneously favor a polar coordinate system of representation, and (c) observers are capable of using other coordinate systems when acting in highly structured spaces (e.g., grids). We discuss these findings in relation to classic work on dimension independence as well as work on spatial representation at other spatial scales.
Using space to remember: Short-term spatial structure spontaneously improves working memory (Cognition)
Spatial information plays an important role in how we remember. In general, there are two (non mutually exclusive) views regarding the role that space plays in memory. One view is that objects overlapping in space interfere with each other in memory. For example, objects presented in the same location (at different points in time) are more frequently confused with one another than objects that are not. Another view is that spatial information can ‘bootstrap’ other kinds of information. For example, remembering a phone number is easier one can see the arrangement of a keypad. Here, building on both perspectives, we test the hypothesis that task-irrelevant spatial structure (i.e., objects appearing in stable locations over repeated iterations) improves working memory. Across 7 experiments, we demonstrate that (1) irrelevant spatial structure improves memory for sequences of objects; (2) this effect does not depend on long-term spatial associations; (3) this effect is unique to space (as opposed to features like color); and (4) spatial structure can be teased apart from spatial interference, and the former drives memory improvement. We discuss how these findings relate to and challenge ‘spatial interference' accounts as well as ‘visuospatial bootstrapping'.
How we see area and why it matters (Trends in Cognitive Sciences)
A large and growing literature examines how we see the visual quantities of number, area, and density. The literature rests on an untested assumption: that our perception of area is veridical. Here, we discuss a systematic distortion of perceived area and its implications for quantity perception more broadly.
Systematic angular biases in the representation of visual space (Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics)
Representing spatial information is one of our most foundational abilities. Yet in the present work we find that even the simplest possible spatial tasks reveal surprising, systematic misrepresentations of space—such as biases wherein objects are perceived and remembered as being nearer to the centers of their surrounding quadrants. We employed both a placement task (in which observers see two differently sized shapes, one of which has a dot in it, and then must place a second dot in the other shape so that their relative locations are equated) and a matching task (in which observers see two dots, each inside a separate shape, and must simply report whether their relative locations are matched). Some of the resulting biases were shape specific. For example, when dots appeared in a triangle during the placement task, the dots placed by observers were biased away from certain parts of the symmetry axes. But other systematic biases were not shape specific, and seemed instead to reflect differences in the grain of resolution for different regions of space. For example, with both a circle and even a shapeless configuration (with only a central landmark) in the matching task, observers were better at discriminating angular differences (when a dot changed positions around the circle, as opposed to inward/outward changes) in cardinal versus oblique sectors. These data reveal a powerful angular spatial bias, and highlight how the resolution of spatial representation differs for different regions and dimensions of space itself.
