Distortions in cognitive maps
Open accessAbstract
Cognitive maps refer to mental representations of maps or environments, as revealed in a variety of tasks. The simplest model of cognitive maps is that they are random degradations of real ones. Research using distance judgments, direction judgments, map recognition, map construction, and other information from memory for maps or environments suggests that distortions, rather than being random, are systematic. They result from cognitive organizing principles, such as hierarchical organization, perspective, reference points and frames, and other devices that facilitate memory and induce distortion at the same time. These distortions do not seem to be reconcilable in any simple way. There does not seem to be a single, coherent cognitive map that captures what we know about a particular map or environment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Distances from less familiar places to more familiar places are often underestimated compared with estimates of distances from more familiar to less familiar places.
“Familiarity with an environment produces other biases: distances from less familiar places to more familiar places are often underestimated compared with estimates of distances from more familiar to less familiar places 136,140 , and familiar locations are drawn larger on maps than are unfamiliar locations 141 (Box 1).”
From From cognitive maps to spatial schemas (2023) · cites this paper as [136]
The influence of stored knowledge on segmentation of environments into subregions is suggested by studies showing that human spatial representations are prone to systematic biases and may be hierarchically organized, similar to semantic and event knowledge.
“The influence of stored knowledge on segmentation of environments into subregions is suggested by studies showing that human spatial representations are prone to systematic biases 136,137 and may be hierarchically organized, similar to semantic and event knowledge 133,138,139 .”
From From cognitive maps to spatial schemas (2023) · cites this paper as [136]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 272
- Authors
- Tversky, B.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tversky, Barbara
- ORCID
- Tversky, Barbara
- Venue
- Geoforum
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-05
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-138
- ISSN
- 0016-7185 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2023526870
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 19.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Geoforum (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Cartography
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geography Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- cognitive maps, distance judgment, direction judgment, map recognition, map building, hierarchy, perspective, reference points, reference frames, mental representation of space
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
