![]() In other words, the drawing is produced from elements present in the subject’s internal memory, but this memory is reconstructed through this graphic representation. In actual fact, it is a dual, interactive process in which the transcription process interacts with the subject’s memorization and internal representation processes ( Massironi, 2004 Shimojima and Katagiri, 2008 Ware, 2020 2). ![]() The former is subjected mainly to a memorial process (a previous experience in the physical world), and the latter projects entities that need not necessarily be pre-existing, except as prior internal representations (information or concepts). Whether we are dealing with the mental representation of a traversed space, or the representation of a set of entities or concepts, each of these representations is the object of an internal understanding before it is transcribed externally on a medium, in other words, both require an externalization process. Here, the term “memorial transcription” is understood to mean the translation and recording on a graphic medium of elements that are mentally present, whether it is the memory of a traversed space or of a set of information or concepts to be arranged, and the term “symbolic projection” is understood as the externalization, through signs or symbols on a graphic medium, of the two types of aforementioned representations–that of a traversed space or of a set of entities or concepts ( Illustrations 1– 3). It must be noted from the outset that the English term mental map does not usually cover the same scope as the French term carte mentale and is mostly limited to the meanings of concept map or carte heuristique. To date, very few studies in the literature have examined the similar, overlapping and oppositional features in what is broadly referred to as “representation(s) of space” and “space(s) of representation.” How can we better apprehend the complex notion of “mental map?” The question of memorial transcription? Of “symbolic projection?” Can we identify meeting points between these two polarities and, if possible, a continuum? Through the notion of cognitive graph, recent advances in the understanding of brain mechanisms enable us to approach the distinctions between cognitive map and conceptual map as an articulated and continuous whole.Īlthough mental (mind) maps, concept maps and cognitive maps ( Chauvin, 2010) are sometimes grouped together under the umbrella term “semantic maps,” the notion of “mental maps” will be considered here according to two different meanings and uses: (1) the internal representation of a traversed space ( cognitive map), and (2) the representation of a set of entities or concepts ( concept map, mind map). The aim is projective, for clarification and discovery purposes or for data organization and visualization. A second field of study, one which is geared more toward exploratory and combinatorial uses, is the concept (also heuristic or mind) map which consists in organizing notions, concepts, and information in the form of tree graphs or graphs that can be used to produce diagrams and flowcharts. In general, the externalization of these representations takes the form of drawings, positioning in a graph, or oral/textual narratives, but it is primarily reflected as a behavior in space that can be recorded as tracking items. In the mental map domain, the first major field of study is geography, spatial cognition, and neurophysiology and it aims to understand how the route taken by a subject (or a set of subjects) in space leads to memorization and internal representation(s). The cognitive map, and the concept map–also known as the “heuristic” or “mind” map–are the two distinct contextual meanings covered by the term mental map in the present article. “The mental map” is a concept that has been used and defined in numerous ways. ![]() Institut ACTE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, France.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |