Body-relative horizontal-vertical anisotropy in human representations of traveled distances.

A growing number of studies investigated anisotropies in representations of horizontal and vertical spaces. In humans, compelling evidence for such anisotropies exists for representations of multi-floor buildings. In contrast, evidence regarding open spaces is indecisive. Our study aimed at further enhancing the understanding of horizontal and vertical spatial representations in open spaces utilizing a simple traveled distance estimation paradigm. Blindfolded participants were moved along various directions in the sagittal plane. Subsequently, participants passively reproduced the traveled distance from memory. Participants performed this task in an upright and in a 30° backward-pitch orientation. The accuracy of distance estimates in the upright orientation showed a horizontal-vertical anisotropy, with higher accuracy along the horizontal axis compared with the vertical axis. The backward-pitch orientation enabled us to investigate whether this anisotropy was body or earth-centered. The accuracy patterns of the upright condition were positively correlated with the body-relative (not the earth-relative) coordinate mapping of the backward-pitch condition, suggesting a body-centered anisotropy. Overall, this is consistent with findings on motion perception. It suggests that the distance estimation sub-process of path integration is subject to horizontal-vertical anisotropy. Based on the previous studies that showed isotropy in open spaces, we speculate that real physical self-movements or categorical versus isometric encoding are crucial factors for (an)isotropies in spatial representations.

No advantage for remembering horizontal over vertical spatial locations learned from a single viewpoint.

Previous behavioral and neurophysiological research has shown better memory for horizontal than for vertical locations. In these studies, participants navigated toward these locations. In the present study we investigated whether the orientation of the spatial plane per se was responsible for this difference. We thus had participants learn locations visually from a single perspective and retrieve them from multiple viewpoints. In three experiments, participants studied colored tags on a horizontally or vertically oriented board within a virtual room and recalled these locations with different layout orientations (Exp. 1) or from different room-based perspectives (Exps. 2 and 3). All experiments revealed evidence for equal recall performance in horizontal and vertical memory. In addition, the patterns for recall from different test orientations were rather similar. Consequently, our results suggest that memory is qualitatively similar for both vertical and horizontal two-dimensional locations, given that these locations are learned from a single viewpoint. Thus, prior differences in spatial memory may have originated from the structure of the space or the fact that participants navigated through it. Additionally, the strong performance advantages for perspective shifts (Exps. 2 and 3) relative to layout rotations (Exp. 1) suggest that configurational judgments are not only based on memory of the relations between target objects, but also encompass the relations between target objects and the surrounding room-for example, in the form of a memorized view.

How to infer possibilities: A reply to Oaksford et al. (2018).

Individuals draw conclusions about possibilities from assertions that make no explicit reference to them. The model theory postulates that assertions such as disjunctions refer to possibilities. Hence, a disjunction of the sort, A or B or both, where A and B are sensible clauses, yields mental models of an exhaustive conjunction of possibly A, possibly B, and possibly both A and B, which each hold in default of information to the contrary. Oaksford, Over, and Cruz (this issue) are critical of the model theory and defend a probabilistic approach to reasoning. In this reply, we deal with their three main claims: (a) Our results concern only the periphery of their probabilistic theory. We show that they refute their theory insofar as it applies to possibilities. (b) The model theory leads to logical absurdities. We rebut this criticism as it applies to the model theory in Hinterecker, Knauff, and Johnson-Laird (2016), and explain why standard modal logics, which concern possibilities, do not set appropriate norms for inferences about them. (c) The algorithm for reasoning based on models needs a normative theory. In fact, it has such a theory, but the demand for "a specification of a sound, complete, and decidable normative system" is chimerical for everyday reasoning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Spatial memory for vertical locations.

Most studies on spatial memory refer to the horizontal plane, leaving an open question as to whether findings generalize to vertical spaces where gravity and the visual upright of our surrounding space are salient orientation cues. In three experiments, we examined which reference frame is used to organize memory for vertical locations: the one based on the body vertical, the visual-room vertical, or the direction of gravity. Participants judged interobject spatial relationships learned from a vertical layout in a virtual room. During learning and testing, we varied the orientation of the participant's body (upright vs. lying sideways) and the visually presented room relative to gravity (e.g., rotated by 90° along the frontal plane). Across all experiments, participants made quicker or more accurate judgments when the room was oriented in the same way as during learning with respect to their body, irrespective of their orientations relative to gravity. This suggests that participants employed an egocentric body-based reference frame for representing vertical object locations. Our study also revealed an effect of body-gravity alignment during testing. Participants recalled spatial relations more accurately when upright, regardless of the body and visual-room orientation during learning. This finding is consistent with a hypothesis of selection conflict between different reference frames. Overall, our results suggest that a body-based reference frame is preferred over salient allocentric reference frames in memory for vertical locations perceived from a single view. Further, memory of vertical space seems to be tuned to work best in the default upright body orientation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Modality, probability, and mental models.

We report 3 experiments investigating novel sorts of inference, such as: A or B or both. Therefore, possibly (A and B). Where the contents were sensible assertions, for example, Space tourism will achieve widespread popularity in the next 50 years or advances in material science will lead to the development of antigravity materials in the next 50 years, or both. Most participants accepted the inferences as valid, though they are invalid in modal logic and in probabilistic logic too. But, the theory of mental models predicts that individuals should accept them. In contrast, inferences of this sort­A or B but not both. Therefore, A or B or both­are both logically valid and probabilistically valid. Yet, as the model theory also predicts, most reasoners rejected them. The participants' estimates of probabilities showed that their inferences tended not to be based on probabilistic validity, but that they did rate acceptable conclusions as more probable than unacceptable conclusions. We discuss the implications of the results for current theories of reasoning.