Spatial perception and knowledge

Abstract

The enthusiasm elicited by the Third International Conference on Spatial Cognition, which was held in Rome in September 2006 (see the ‘‘Laboratory Note’’ in this issue), convinced the Editorial Board of Cognitive Processing to publish an extended and revised version of the most valuable papers presented at the Conference. The Scientific Committee was asked to judge the several presentations (oral speeches and posters), on many dimensions consisting in originality, relevance and methodology, and those highly scored have been selected and subsequently contacted. Twelve authors answered the call and have been invited to prepare a full manuscript to be published in forthcoming special issues of Cognitive Processing. From the arguments covered, I tried to categorize the papers into two groups. The two resulting issues of Cognitive Processing are not intended to focus on a particular view, nor on a central theme, but acknowledge that studies on spatial cognition must be as diverse as the human experience. The title of the present issue, ‘‘Spatial Perception and Knowledge’’, and that of a following issue, ‘‘Spatial Navigation’’, may therefore seem a compulsory attempt to hold sand in a fist, but the central aim has been pursued by every paper presented: no one research may be conclusive if considered alone, but several researches can depict human–environment interaction. The present issue begins with a significant paper of Cees van Leeuven on dynamics and interaction: in his review, he depicts the background of the development of connectionism, as well as the criticisms against connectionist models on autonomy, and proposes a way to avoid the ‘‘baby-sitting dilemma’’. Autonomy in connectionist models relies on adaptive learning skills: thus, they need well-designed training schedules (baby-sitting). However, autonomy should emerge without external design and scheduling. Van Leeuven proposes that spontaneous selforganized activity in nonlinear dynamical systems may solve the dilemma: the ongoing dynamics of connectionist models, based on a small-world network structure, may proficiently simulate the psycho-physiological properties of the brain, through an adaptive rewiring process within a network of chaotic units. From these considerations, attractors and chaotic itineracy emerge as thoughtful methods that are able to describe the neural activity aiming to bridge the distance from brain to cognitive processing. The approach is complex, but who can truly endorse that a linear model can trap the complex relationship between cognition and neuroanatomy? In the second review of the issue, Marios N. Avraamides and Jonathan W. Kelly report empirical and theoretical literature on spatial updating and memory retrieval about real-world environment. Their work is noteworthy, since many multiple-system models on spatial representation are presented and summarized from a neutral point of view, leading to a fruitful starting point for a multiple comparison. Moreover, based on May’s (2004) sensorimotor interference model and theories of stimulus–response compatibility, the authors propose an inspiring integrative model aiming at describing how people reason and memorize surroundings in a real-world human–environment interaction. The core concept states that online and offline processing differ in their sensorimotor reference frame: in the former case an egocentric frame can define the spatial code for locations and responses, while in the latter case such a frame cannot be used, and the agent may rely on imagery processes to place the reference frame anywhere D. Basso (&) Department of Psychology, University of Pavia, Piazza Botta, 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy e-mail: demis.basso@unipv.it