The time course of spatial memory processing in the two hemispheres
Introduction
Remembering the locations of objects in space has been claimed to encompass at least two distinct spatial codes (Huttenlocher, Hedges, Corrigan, & Crawford, 2004; Huttenlocher, Hedges, & Duncan, 1991; Laeng, Peters, & McCabe, 1998; Lansdale, 1998). First, there is a fine-grained code providing exact knowledge about the objects’ positions. Second, a categorical spatial code represents the general spatial category in which an object falls. Spatial memory performance typically reflects the combined influences of the two codes. Evidence for the categorical codes follows from the fact that distortions in spatial memory are not simply random (which would indicate a unitary, but imperfect fine-grained coding mechanism) but show systematic distortions in the direction of what can be argued to be categorical prototypes. In a “classic” task that has been used in many studies thus far, and it was also employed in the present study, subjects have to reconstruct the location of a single dot in a circle. The relevant spatial categories are formed by the circle's (invisible) quadrants. Prototypical category values attract the reconstructed location towards the centre of the quadrant (angular bias) in which it was originally presented and towards the circle's perimeter (radial bias).
Interestingly, the foregoing dual code distinction can easily be linked to the distinction between coordinate and categorical coding of spatial relations in perception made by Kosslyn and others (Jager & Postma, 2003; Kosslyn, 1987; Kosslyn, Chabris, Marsolek, & Koenig, 1992; Laeng & Peters, 1995). Coordinate spatial relations capture precise, metric information needed amongst others to guide spatiomotor actions. In turn, categorical spatial relations provide abstract, invariant information about visual constellations, allowing a degree of constancy to perspective changes. One important further implication of Kosslyns’ idea was that coordinate spatial processing would engage more right hemisphere processing, whereas categorical processing would depend more on left hemispheric resources. Laeng et al. (1998) applied this lateralization hypothesis successfully to the domain of spatial memory. In a visual half field study, they showed that systematic biases in positional reconstruction from memory – supposedly reflecting categorical coding – were stronger with lateralized stimuli presentations to the left hemisphere.
Assuming that indeed two spatial memory codes in combination determine how well we are able to reconstruct the locations of previous events, an important question concerns the time course of these coding mechanisms. Moreover, if we further assume that different neural circuitries are involved as well, it clearly would be of interest to explore the temporal characteristics of spatial processing within each hemisphere. Werner and Diedrichsen (2002) recently looked at the presence of categorical distortions in spatial memory on the very short time scale, i.e. within a few 100 ms after presentation. They observed that categorical distortions already occurred with retention intervals as brief as 50 ms. One possible interpretation of these findings is that, already during the perceptual phase, categorical and coordinate spatial mechanisms run in parallel and they automatically influence spatial memory.
The goal of the present study was to examine the time spectrum of these effects in more detail. In other words: what happens to categorical spatial memory codes as time passes? To answer this question, we compared performance on the dot in circle memory task for short intervals (500 ms) to intermediate duration intervals (2 s) to relatively ‘long’ periods (5 s). We may speculate here about three possible outcomes. One could be that categorical biases not only emerge very rapidly (see Werner & Diedrichsen, 2002) but also persist in time. For instance, categorical coding would be useful because it provides a way to infer and maintain the invariants from a continuously changing environment. A second possibility could be that categorical codes decline after some time. One likely pattern could be that systematic errors are replaced by (larger) random errors over time. Finally, the influence of categorical biases could actually become larger over time, because this memory is more resistant to decay than the spatial memory of the actual coordinates. In other words, eventually people may just remember the prototypes and not the specific instances any longer.
Section snippets
Research participants
Twenty-four students of the Utrecht University participated, 12 males and 12 females. They varied in age from 20 to 26 years, and were all right-handed. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision, and none suffered any subjective memory or attention complaints.
Materials and procedure
Subjects were seated 39 cm from a 17 in. computer monitor. Their head was fixed in a chin rest and head clamp. They fixated on a fixation cross in the middle of the screen at eye level. Their task was to click with the
Angular differences
An analysis of variance was conducted with hemisphere (left, right), retention interval (500, 2000 and 5000 ms) and quadrant angle (8°, 26.5°, 45°, 63.5° or 82°) as independent variables, and angular deviation (i.e. difference between presented angle and relocated angle) as the dependent measure. Notice that with regards to biases towards spatial prototypes, a negative angular deviation would mean an error towards the 45° for angles smaller than 45°, whereas such a bias would be expressed as a
Discussion
What happens to our memory of position when time passes? The present study specifically examined the nature of the spatial codes used to relocate items in space. In particular, we focused on the development of these codes over time. Subjects were briefly shown a circle containing a dot in either the left or the right visual field, and subsequently had to relocate the dot in the empty circle, which was placed in the same visual field. A main finding was that spatial memory performance is biased
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by a PIONIER research grant to A.P. (NWO #440-20-000) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
References (12)
- et al.
Spatial categories and the estimation of location
Cognition
(2004) - et al.
On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A review of the current evidence
Neuropsychologia
(2003) - et al.
Lateralization of spatial-memory processes: Evidence on spatial span, maze learning, and memory for object locations
Neuropsychologia
(2002) - et al.
Cerebral lateralization for the processing of spatial coordinates and categories in left- and right-handers
Neuropsychologia
(1995) - et al.
Spatial memory averaging, the landmark attraction effect, and representational gravity
Psychological Research
(2000) - et al.
Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location
Psychological Review
(1991)
Cited by (17)
Bilateral parietal activations for complex visual-spatial functions: Evidence from a visual-spatial construction task
2017, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :On one hand, there is evidence in favor of right-lateralization. Behavioral studies show that tasks tapping memory for spatial location are performed better for stimuli presented to the left hand (Witelson, 1976) or in the left visual field (Kimura, 1969; Durnford and Kimura, 1971; Tucker et al., 1999; Postma et al., 2006). Lesion studies indicate that injury to the right hemisphere, especially the parietal lobe, results in dramatic impairments in the spatial domain that are evident in drawing, construction, and orientation tasks as well as in left-right disorientation and apraxia for dressing (Brain, 1941; McFie et al., 1950; Hecaen et al., 1956; Vallar, 1998).
Temporal characteristics of working memory for spatial relations: An ERP study
2010, International Journal of PsychophysiologyCategorical and coordinate spatial relations in working memory: An fMRI study
2009, Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :More importantly, with this design we could manipulate the working memory demands by varying the temporal characteristics of the task, which permits the comparison of brain activation patterns between categorical and coordinate processing at different working memory conditions. Given the differential results at a behavioural level (Postma et al., 2006; Van der Ham et al., 2007) this variable was expected to have a substantial influence on brain activity during task execution and to provide for well comparable trial characteristics. The comparisons of spatial relation type as well as temporal characteristics can be placed in the context of the two views on spatial relation processing.
The development of categorical and coordinate spatial relations
2008, Cognitive DevelopmentFractionation of visuo-spatial memory processes in bipolar depression: A cognitive scaffolding account
2015, Psychological Medicine