Display options
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 05;4:803. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00803. eCollection 2013.

Space and time in the child's mind: metaphoric or ATOMic?.

Frontiers in psychology

Roberto Bottini, Daniel Casasanto

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca , Milan, Italy.

PMID: 24204352 PMCID: PMC3817359 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00803

Abstract

Space and time are intimately linked in the human mind, but different theories make different predictions about the nature of this relationship. Metaphor Theory (MT) predicts an asymmetric relationship between space and time. By contrast, A Theory of Magnitude (ATOM) does not predict any cross-dimensional asymmetry, since according to ATOM spatial and temporal extents are represented by a common neural metric for analog magnitude. To date, experiments designed to contrast these theories support MT over ATOM, in adults and children. Yet, proponents of ATOM have questioned whether some of the observed cross-dimensional asymmetries could be task-related artifacts. Here we conducted a test of the asymmetric relationship between space and time in children's minds, equating the perceptual availability of spatial and temporal information in the stimuli more stringently than in previous experiments in children. Results showed the space-time asymmetry predicted by MT. For the same stimuli (i.e., snails racing along parallel paths), spatial information influenced temporal judgments more than temporal information influenced spatial judgments. These results corroborate previous findings in Greek children and extend them to children who speak Dutch and Brazilian Portuguese. The space-time asymmetry in children's judgments is not due to task-related differences in the perceptual availability of spatial and temporal information in the stimuli; rather, it appears to be a consequence of how spatial and temporal representations are associated in the child's mind.

Keywords: ATOM; children; conceptual metaphor; space; time

References

  1. Mem Cognit. 1982 Jul;10(4):389-95 - PubMed
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Nov;7(11):483-8 - PubMed
  3. Cognition. 2010 Aug;116(2):217-41 - PubMed
  4. Cognition. 2000 Apr 14;75(1):1-28 - PubMed
  5. Mem Cognit. 1996 Sep;24(5):557-72 - PubMed
  6. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jul 12;364(1525):1831-40 - PubMed
  7. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Aug;71(6):1399-413 - PubMed
  8. Mem Cognit. 1993 Sep;21(5):627-45 - PubMed
  9. Psychol Rev. 1957 May;64(3):153-81 - PubMed
  10. Neuron. 2004 Mar 25;41(6):983-93 - PubMed
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Jun;30(3):411-30 - PubMed
  12. Mem Cognit. 2012 Apr;40(3):483-95 - PubMed
  13. Brain Cogn. 2007 Jun;64(1):68-73 - PubMed
  14. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003 Jan 1;15(1):47-56 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Sci. 2010 Jun;21(6):873-81 - PubMed
  16. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Apr;35(2):551-64 - PubMed
  17. Cogn Sci. 2006 May 6;30(3):401-50 - PubMed
  18. Cognition. 2010 Nov;117(2):191-202 - PubMed
  19. Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb;21(2):222-3 - PubMed
  20. Cogn Sci. 2010 Apr;34(3):387-405 - PubMed
  21. Exp Psychol. 2007;54(4):289-97 - PubMed
  22. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Mar;28(2):259-74 - PubMed
  23. Nature. 1954 Oct 2;174(4431):642-4 - PubMed
  24. Hum Brain Mapp. 2009 Aug;30(8):2466-76 - PubMed
  25. Trends Neurosci. 2000 Nov;23(11):571-9 - PubMed
  26. Cognition. 2008 Feb;106(2):579-93 - PubMed
  27. Nature. 1954 Feb 20;173(4399):363-4 - PubMed

Publication Types