Sneha Agarwal Y9588 Paper Review 
Spatial language, visual attention, and perceptual simulation Kenny R. Coventry , Dermot Lyno? , Angelo Cangelosi , Lynn Monrouxe , Dan Joyce , Daniel C. Richardson This paper illustrates how one tends to subconsciously relate an object’s purpose (or context) even when examining it spa?ally. Also, it demonstrates how spa?al language can direct one’s eyes to different parts of the same scene. There are 2 views on how a?en?on is directed across a scene – I. A?en?on Vector Sum (AVS) I – how a?en?on is directed from a reference object to a located object, using vectors of respec?ve weights. II. View 2I I – takes into account the context if the objects and possible simula?ons of the scene, rela?ng to the purpose which it generally serves. This paper, although, does not dismiss AVS, supports view 2. Two experiments were conducted – EXPERIMENT I – Modifica?ons/Improvisa?on – To check whether really rain directed a?en?on to umbrella(Coventry and Garrod (2004) I I ) , materials from Coventry et al. (2001) I I I were modified so that the rain did not reach the umbrella. The variables were – § preposi?on set (over/under versus above/below) § func?on (func?onal, non-func?onal and control) § posi?on of protec?ng object (canonical, 45 or 90) § object completeness (holes absent or present) Result – Numbers and Graphs I. The degree of protec?on offered affects spa?al judgement indica?ng that viewers tend to simulate falling objects even when their end state is not shown. II. AVS cannot fully predict comprehension of spa?al language in this case as results changed with similar objects that could not give protec?on (holed umbrella). III. Results for words like above/below are more AVS dependent as compared to over/under, which are more func?on based. EXPERIMENT II – Eye Tracking In this, the sentences were showed before the pictures to determine how the eyes move depending on the spa?al language decision to be made. The variables were – § func?on (func?onal, non-func?onal, control), § preposi?on set (over/under versus above/ below),§ preposi?on superiority (superior-over/above, inferior-under/ below), § distance (near, far) and § interest area Result – Numbers and Graphs Both func?onal and linguis?c effects can be seen on the parsing of the visual by the eye. This reinforces the View 2 as well as AVS on how one object can direct a?en?on to another. CO NC LUSIO N - Spa?al language comprehension is associated with a situa?onal representa?on of how objects usually func?on, and thus can invoke a range of types of perceptual simula?ons, including mo?on processing where a?en?on is directed to objects not men?oned in the sentence to be evaluated. The full range of poten?al simula?ons relevant for spa?al language comprehension and the condi?ons under which they are operable remains to be established. I V References – I. Regier, T., & Carlson, L. (2001). Grounding spa?al language in percep?on: An empirical and computa?onal inves?ga?on. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 130(2), 273–298. II. Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing and ac?ng. The psychological seman?cs of spa?al preposi?ons. Hove and New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis Group III. Coventry, K. R., Prat-Sala, M., & Richards, L. (2001). The interplay between geometry and func?on in the comprehension of over, under, above and below. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(3), 376–398. IV. Coventry et al., 2010 K.Coventry, D. Lyno?, A. Cangelosi, L. Knight, D. Joyce and D.C. Richardson, Spa?al language, visual a?en?on, and perceptual simula?on, Brain & Language 112 (2010), pp. 202–213.
