Human Conceptions of Space Geog 231 Ben Adams
Papers ● H. Couclelis and N. Gale (1986) Space and Spaces. Geografiska Annaler 68B: 1-12. ● D. Montello (1993) Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space. In: A. U. Frank and I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Theoretical Basis for GIS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 716, pp. 312-321. ● S. Freundschuh and M. Egenhofer (1997) Human Conceptions of Spaces: Implications for GIS. Transactions in GIS 2(4): 361-375.
Human Conceptions of Space ● All three papers are concerned with ways of classifying “spaces”. ● Specifically, how do human conceptualizations of spaces compare to mathematical and physical notions of space (the traditional basis for GISs) ● This is an important ontological problem (in the philosophic sense) for Geographic Information Science ● All three primarily interested in visual perception of space
Space and spaces ● There are many concepts of space ● Focus on notions of perceptual and cognitive space. ● They introduce a framework for analysis based on group theory and make the claim that it can be used to make a “hard distinction ... between perceptual and cognitive space.”
Perception and Cognition ● “perception … occurs because of the presence of an object … temporally, it is closely connected with events in the immediate surroundings” ● Is there a real distinction? Perception directly linked to sensation (seeing, hearing, etc.) ● Is perception a part of cognition? ● Distinction between the two just a question of definition or is there an empirical distinction (Piaget)? [[study pg. 4]]
Perception and cognition ● Problem that we can only observe behavior ● Piaget – perception is momentary figuration – Cognition allows for transformation operations ● Neurologically might “perception” and “cognition” be the functions of different parts of the brain? ● Massively parallel processing in brain is functioning in the “immediate” all the time, and is cognition an emergent feature of this system?
Space and spaces ● Attempts to create analytic framework for understanding perceptual and cognitive spaces in terms of group theory. ● Hierarchy of spaces:
Algebraic Notation ● [S, ʘ ] – S, set of operands – ʘ , one binary operation ● ʘ :SxS → S ● Example S is the set of numbers and ʘ is multiplication operator – Any number (element in S) times any other number will result in a number (also element in S)
Five axioms ● Closure: For all a, b ϵ S, aʘb ϵ S ● Associative law: For all a,b,c ϵ S, (a ʘ b) ʘ c = a ʘ (b ʘ c) ● Identity element: For all a ϵ S there exists an e ϵ S s.t. a ʘ e=e ʘ a=a ● Existence of inverses: For every a ϵ S, there exists an element b ϵ S s.t. a ʘ b=b ʘ a=e ● Commutative law: For all a, b ϵ S, a ʘ b=b ʘ a
Example: multiplication over reals ● Closure: a * b = c ● Associative: (a*b)*c = a*(b*c) ● Identity element, 1: a*1 = 1*a = a ● Inverse: a * (1/a) = (1/a)*a = 1 ● Commutative: a*b = b*a
Types of groups/spaces ● Abelian group: G1-G5 Pure Euclidean space ● Group: G1-G4 Physical space ● Monoid: G1-G3 Sensorimotor space ● Semigroup: G1-G2 Perceptual space
Conceptual spaces ● Per this paper cognitive spaces do not fit with these axioms of group theory. ● However, G ä rdenfors (2000) presents conceptual space theory, which does allow one to talk about cognitive spaces in terms of metric spaces which are abelian groups.
Questions ● Does this analytical framework help with cognitive modeling if cognitive and symbolic spaces do not fit in it? ● Are the arguments for matching space types to group theory axioms compelling? ● Are these atoms and operands comparable?
Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space ● What are the scale classes of space? – e.g. small-scale vs large-scale spaces ● A question of spatial psychology – are there qualitatively distinct scales in terms of how humans cognize space that can be tested empirically? ● Scale is relative to organism size
I am crushing your head!
Four Classes of Psychological Spaces ● Based on projective size relative to human size: ● Figural – directly observed; projectively smaller than body ● Vista – proj. as large or larger than the body; viewed from single viewpoint ● Environmental – proj. larger than the body; can only be viewed completely through locomotion through the space ● Geographical – proj. much larger than the body; cannot be learned through locomotion only through symbolic representation
Questions ● Do humans ever operate on the geographic “psychological” scale or are they always operating on smaller scale representations? ● Is a much smaller than body scale (not visible, e.g. nano) the same psychological space as much larger than body scale. ● Does depth perception play a role? Are projectively small spaces really all the same scale if we can cognize that what we are looking at is far away?
Implications for GIS ● Main questions: How can an understanding of spatial conceptualizations influence spatial representations in GIS? ● How do people perceive and cognize physical space? ● How should these physical spaces modeled in GIS when you take into account cognition? ● What are the rules for classification?
Implications for GIS ● Freundschuh and Egenhofer classify spaces in terms of manipulability , locomotion , and size of space . – More than just scale as previously defined ● Perception and cognition of space are experience-based – Image schemata – recurrent patterns and shapes
Many cognitive models of space ● Different ways of qualitatively classifying different types of spaces (ontologies): – Geometric data models – Models of small and large scale ● Image of the City (Lynch, 1960) ● Ittelson (1973) – Differentiation between object-space and environment-space ● How does this relate to containers in image schemata?
Many cognitive models of space ● Classifying spaces, cont. – Small, medium, large spaces ● Where “medium” is defined around human scale (Montello) – Representations of space (maps) – Models that relate to interactions ● Spaces have affordances – Spaces map from one to another, Mark (1992)
6 types of spaces ● Manipulable object space – Pencil, book ● Non-manipulable object space – Car, elephant, tree ● Environmental space – Buildings, neighborhoods ● Geographic space – States, countries
6 types of spaces, cont. ● Panoramic space – Views in a room, from airplane window ● Map space – Maps! (but not other map sized things) – Does this warrant its own kind of space, since it is a representation of a space? – What about a book that has a description of a physical space?
Implications for GIS design ● GIS representation should better match the space being worked with. ● Different types of spaces might need different models, presentations, and user interfaces. – Computer games have gotten very sophisticated with this idea
Conceptions of space and geographic ontologies ● Ontologies → Categories of geographic kinds / objects and their properties and relations ● How do human conceptualizations of space influence geographic ontologies more generally? ● i.e. what kinds of geographic objects, relations, boundaries, events, processes, qualities, and quantities are important for cognitive GIS? ● Direct connection to what kinds of data are stored in GIS databases
Conceptions of space and ontologies ● Scale definitely matters for classification into different kinds: pond, lake, sea, ocean ● Should there be different representations of the same geographic object (e.g. cities) in a GIS database depending on the scale? e.g. perceiving the city from the ground (environment) vs. perceiving it from an airplane window (vista). ● Even the existence of geographical objects is sometimes subject to “individual or cultural variability” (Smith & Mark, 1998)
Conceptions of space and ontologies ● How important should the scale be for representation vs. other properties of a geographic object (e.g. a lake is a container of water)? ● Identification of a geographic object as a specific kind can alter its size (and perhaps scale). e.g. identifying an area as a marsh vs. lake ● Objects with different scales can be the same kind: e.g. Singapore and Russia are both states.
Recommend
More recommend
