SPAM-Ling: A Dynamical Model of Spatial Working Memory and Spatial Language
John J. Lipinski, Larissa K. Samuelson, Gregor Schöner, John Peter Spencer · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2006
Spatial language is an ideal domain to examine perceptualmotor and language integration precisely because it is an unambiguous case of these systems coming together.To date, however, researchers in this domain have made little headway in understanding the real-time processes underlying spatial language behaviors.Here, we describe a dynamical systems model-SPAM-Ling-that integrates the real-time processes that underlie spatial working memory and the use of spatial prepositions in a canonical "above" ratings task.Comparisons between empirical data and model simulations demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach.We conclude by highlighting several novel predictions of the model that we are currently testing in our laboratory. How Do Sensory-Motor and Linguistic Systems Interact?Understanding how the sensory-motor and linguistic systems interact is a central issue in cognitive science.Spatial language is an ideal domain to explore the relationship between these systems because it brings language and space together.To date, two general approaches to representation speak to this interaction in spatial language (Barsalou, 1999): amodal symbolic systems and perceptual symbol systems.Amodal symbolic systems presume representational independence between symbolic processes like language and sensory-motor systems (Harnad, 1990).As a result of this strong separation, amodal systems require a transduction process that permits "communication" between these separated systems.Barsalou's Perceptual Symbol Systems (1999) approach contrasts with this transduction-based, amodal approach by positing inherently grounded perceptual symbols.These perceptual symbols are "records of neural states that underlie perception" (p.583) and are both in the given sensory modality and capable of replicating the flexible, productive, hierarchical capacities of traditional symbolic systems.Although both approaches to the interaction of sensorymotor and linguistic systems have received support, there are two critical limits of these proposals.First, they largely rely on descriptive, conceptual accounts of representational