Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

When asked to convey temporal concepts such as ‘yesterday’and ‘tomorrow’ via movements of a dot on a vertical bar,American undergraduates utilize analogical mappingsbetween spatial and temporal concepts. Previous work hasrevealed two different strategies, hypothesized to requirediffering amounts of artificial language exposure to learn.Different pairs of participants, when interacting about thesetime concepts, all settled on the same association betweenspatial magnitude and temporal duration, with largermovements used to convey temporal intervals of greaterduration. However, the association between particular spatiallocations and temporal concepts such as ‘past’ and ‘future’,elicited much more arbitrary solutions, where the mappingsdiffered across pairs of participants. These findings suggestedthat the duration mapping might be driven by mostly shared,initial cognitive biases, while contrasting mappings forpast/future result more clearly from extensive linguisticinteraction. Here we tested whether the brain respondsdifferently to duration mappings as compared to directionmappings by recording participants’ EEG as they learn amini-language that includes both kinds. ERPs time locked toEnglish words elicited larger amplitude N400 and P600 whenthey did not match the preceding signal than when they didmatch. The P600 results were larger and more robust for theduration than the direction stimuli, suggesting participantswere more sensitive to violations of the duration mappingscheme. These data support our hypothesis that people have acognitive bias for the duration mappings that supports theirearly emergence in the development of a semiotic system.