DOES A STORY UNDERSTANDER

NEED A POINT OF VIEW?

of spatial
stories
traversals,
of individuals
as provoked by
going from here to
I
there and encountering various events and
Robert P. Abelson
Yale University
objects along the way.
I
T~e Si~ulatio~ o f Traversals

1974,
At the Carbonell Memorial Conference in
there was a good deal of informal
discussion of the use by people of analogue
Our
individual
assumption
hears
is that when a n
a story about a traversal
through a spatial territory, he will tend to
I
simulations in knowledge retrieval or construct a simulation of this traversal,
question-answering.

there along your

We asked

usual route
each
questions like, "How many traffic lights are
from
other

the
employing some mixture

assumption has
of

considerable
linguistic
spatial elements in this construction.
and
This
intuitive
I
railroad station to your house?" Or, "Can a appeal, although it may not appeal to the
salt shaker
former
to
type
be used as a stool?".
of question usually gives rise
introspective reports of a
simulation of the traversal of the requested
The

mental
intuitions of everybody,
not be true of everybody.
and indeed, need
I
There are at least two interesting
route, replete with visual imagery. The consequences of this assumption, both
latter

report
type of question may or may not give
rise to a mental
knowing
simulation. Some people
propositlonally that a salt
amenable to experimentation. One
the simulation process will recruit imagined
acts and objects not present in the
is that

story
I
shaker cannot be used as a stool because its but necessary for carrying out the
size is

of sitting
insufficient. Others
mentally playing through the motor
on a salt shaker, whence they
rudely discover the negative answer.
report
sequence
simulation. A simple example arises in the
following story fragment: "He stood watching
the house
fence.
from outside the white
Finally, he opened the gate and went
picket
i
i
into the yard..." Most listeners to these
People with different cognitive styles lines report the spontaneous invention of
can become quite exercised over whether the some particular kind of latch used to open
propositional or simulational account is the the gate. It is either "seen" or
"correct" psychological description of this represented by a motor sequence, or both.
type

motor
of question-answering.

images are prone to

People
experience difficulty constructing visual or
be
who

strong
Another

could make
type

out
of example is the following.
"As Jack approached
the
the
sign
i n t e r s e c t i o n , he
reading "Broad
1
propositionalists (e.g., Pylyshyn, 1973). I Street'. Turning the corner, he quickly
had a recent argument on this issue with a

1
spotted the drug store he had been looking
well-known psychologist not given to visual for". To the subsequent question whether
imagery. "Can a salt shaker be a stool?", I Jack turned left or right at the corner,
asked her. "No," she said immediately, most people report having a definite opinion
"Obviously not. I t ' s the wrong size. I that one or the other was correct, or at any
knew that right away because the features of
a salt
features
shaker don't
of a stool.
match the crlticlal
I didn't need any
rate was the way they saw it.

It would be interesting to demonstrate

I
visual imagery". and delimit a strong version of this

her:
I then found a subtler example to test
"Can a shoe
hesitated.
be a hammer?".
Absent-mindedly making
She
a
phenomenon, wherein

occurred in the traversal

they hadn't.
subjects would
certain that particular details had actually
story even
feel

when
Some cognitive psychologists
I
repeated hammering motion up and down with have documented a milder confusion between
her hand, as though grasping a hypothetical
shoe, she answered, "Well, yes." I pounced
at her gesture. "Aha! Why were you moving
presented and remembered information,
which conclusions strongly implied by a text
are stored as though they were explicit in
in
I
your hand like that?" "Oh, I often gesture the text (Bransford, Barclay, & Franks,

1
like this," she replied, switching slyly to 1972; Kintsch, 1974). It has also recently
a side-to-side motion. "No, not llke that been conjectured by Schank and Abelson
(side-to-side) I said, "like thief" (up and (1975) for textual contexts replete with
down). She reluctantly conceded the point. cliche -- "situational scripts" such as
Score one against the proposltionalists.

system
Of course the
can know
idea
by doing
that a knowledge
is familiar in
eating

later
in a restaurant -- that
will insert missing obvious details
listeners

realzing that they have done so.

without
The
!
similar pheonomenon conjectured here would
artificial intelligence under the rubric of be even more striking because the inserted

I
"procedural knowledge" (Winograd, 1972; details would be essentially gratuitous: the
Rumelhart, Lindsay, & Norman, 1972). It is stories do not imply any particular type of
also basic tenet of Piaget's psychology of gate latch or direction of turn, etc.
knowledge. Nevertheless, the procedures
involved in particular mental simulations I would llke to be able to report to
are not well understood.
it may
of simulation from the
While in principle
be possible to separate the concept
discussion of
you

Then
that we

we
had indeed done an experiment
successfully establishing
could debate
this phenomenon.
whether it was
I
non-lingulstic codes or images, in practice something special to simulaton and

I
the two areas seem intertwined. In this non-linguistlcally coded materials (as I
paper I will discuss the mental simulation would hope it would be), or whether it had

140

I
to do more g e n e r a l l y with what Minsky (1974) faced with a long, m e a n d e r i n g story, the
would call "filling in default values" in listener in the Self condition would tend
knowledge frames. Unfortunately I am not preferentially to absorb "body sensation"
able to report this. We tried one details, and the listener in the Balcony
experiment last summer but were unable to condition would tend preferentially to
i n t r o d u c e a long enough time delay to permit absorb "far visual" details. The matter is
subjects to lose the s h o r t - t e r m surface cues not so simple for "near visual" details. In
permitting the discrimination whether a a pilot study, we found that Balcony
given detail was a c t u a l l y in the story or subjects sometimes r e p o r t e d "floating down"
not. We are going to try again soon. off the balcony from time to time, as it
were, to peer v i c a r i o u s l y over the actor's
What I can report to you is an s h o u l d e r at details o t h e r w i s e too small to
experiment on a second phenomenon. If in imagine seeing clearly from a distance.
theory we accept s i m u l a t i o n as a r e a s o n a b l e (Such flexible p e r s p e c t i v e is reasonable in
process by which a traversal can be the light of K c s s l y n ' s (1974) e x p e r i m e n t s on
understood, we must face the a m b i g u i t y that visual image size, showing that it is
there are different vantage Points from disadvantageous to retrieve detailed
which a Riven simulation ~ ¥ b ge conducted. i n f o r m a t i o n from small visual images.)
The most obvious vantage difference is
between a simulation of the individual Table I gives the mean proportions of
himself performing the traversal, and a the three different types of details
simulation of someone watching that correctly recalled by subjects in each
individual. This distinction, as we shall experimental condition, on a 21-item cued
see, can have important consequences for recall test administered approximately
memory of the story. twenty minutes after hearing the story. Our
predictions were clearly supported. The
Balcony group a v e r a g e d 17.6% better recall
Points o f View of the Self ~nd the Observer: Of far visual details than the Self group,
A__nnExperiment and the Self group a v e r a g e d 15.0% better
recall of body s e n s a t i o n a l details than the
A listener s i m u l a t i n g a traversal from Balcony group. There were no d i f f e r e n c e s
the point of view of the story c h a r a c t e r for near visual details. For each type of
will p r e s u m a b l y generate motor images as detail, the No Vantage Point group did about
well as visual images such as might a p p e a r as badly as w h i c h e v e r of the other two
to the actor. On the other hand, a groups had the "wrong" vantage point.
simulator from an o b s e r v e r ' s point of view
would presumably not be disposed toward One other dependent measure in the
motor or other body sensation images, and study produced interesting results.
his visual images would have a different P r e c e d i n g the cued recall test was a free
perspective from that of the actor. For recall task in which all subjects were asked
example, very large objects might be in to try to r e c r e a t e the story as best they
focus for a distant observer, but not well could, llne for line. Each recalled line
p e r c e i v e d by an actor too close to them. was scored for w h e t h e r it c a p t u r e d the gist
These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s served as the basis for of a corresponding original story line.
an experiment designed and run in S u b j e c t s often left out whole scenes, and
c o l l a b o r a t i o n with Richard Pinto. reversed the order or events, a l t h o u g h they
did not often invent details which were not
A 6 8 - s e n t e n c e story about a character there. The pattern with the B a l c o n y group
leaving a hotel and strolling a block down r e l a t i v e l y more correct than the Self group
the street was read in common to subjects on far visual details as opposed to body
given three different instructions. All s e n s a t i o n details was present in these free
s u b j e c t s were told to close their eyes and recall data, a l t h o u g h not as s t r o n g l y as in
"imagine, as best and as v i v i d l y as you can, cued recall, and not statistically
along with what you hear". Each sentence significant. A very s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
was to be rated on a scale of vividness. was present, however, in p r o p o r t i o n correct
(this i n s t r u c t i o n was i n t e n d e d to disguise On all types of items (including "fillers")
the memory nature of the study.) A d d i t i o n a l for the No Vantage Point group. The total
i n s t r u c t i o n s were given to constitute two p r o p o r t i o n s correct were .344 for No Vantage
different vantage point conditions. In the Point, .560 for Self, and .571 for Balcony.
Self group, subjects were told to i m a g i n e The c o r r e s p o n d i n g p r o p o r t i o n s over c r i t i c a l
themselves being the main c h a r a c t e r i n t h e items on cued recall (Table I) were .508 for
story. In the B a l c o n y group, subjects were No Vantage Point, .572 for Self, and .572
told to imagine t h e m s e l v e s w a t c h i n g from a for Balcony. In other words, the No Vantage
f o u r t h - f l o o r hotel balcony. A No Vantage Point group e x h i b i t s an acute d i s a d v a n t a g e
Point group got no specific vantage point in free recall w h i c h it does not suffer in
instruction. cued recall. Some of the story m a t e r i a l
w h i c h is a v a i l a b l e in m e m o r y presents an
There were three crucial kinds of access problem for the No Vantage Point
group.
details in the story: "far visual" details,
items which in realistic p e r c e p t i o n can best
be seen from far away (such as a sign over a One further result is worthy of
bank); "near visual" details, natural to mention. All subjects were given Betts"
view from close range (such as a Test of v i v i d n e s s of visual imagery. The
w r i s t w a t c h ) ; and "body sensation" details superiority of the Balcony over the Self
(such as a g g r a v a t i n g a sore arm, or drinking group on far visual details was sharply
hot coffee). We hypothesized that when enhanced in subsamples scoring high on

141
general visual imagery (a 32.6% superiority,
vs. a mere 2.4% superiority among
network. The extent to which this
psychological truism will prove important in
I
non-imager subsamples). This supports the AI applications remains to be seen, but I
reasonable supposition that processing style
depends upon
individuals
the proclivities of the
as well as the task orientation
believe that it is short-sighted to overlook
this non-uniqueness problem. I
given whole groups of subjects. A more radical view is that programs
should not be designed to preserve all the
The overall pattern of these results is details of understood texts, that they
I think very difficult to explain from a should in fact throw away "less interesting"
propositionalist point of view. All information -- or at least bury it in remote
subjects heard exactly the same story. They storage so that it d o e s n ' t clutter the
were all told to
they
some
heard,
subjects
imagine along with
so that one cannot argue that
were oriented
w~at

toward
working memory
referenced.
whenever
From this
the story
perspective,
Constraints of human memory are seen
is
the
as an
I
linguistic and others toward non-linguistic advantage to intelligence, rather than as a
codes. All that
s u b j e c t groups was
was different
the vantage point from
which imagination was to be exercised.
results, it seems to me, support not only
between

The
deficiency.
things,

strive for.
People's
particularly
skill
over
in forgetting
the long
might provide a good model for AI systems to
run,
I
the existence of non-linguistic codes, but
even more theory-bogglingly, the existence
of di@ferent forms of non-lin~uis$ic
which depend on the point of view of the
codes
The
forget,
trick lies in knowing what
and that is where the vantage point
might come in. From a vantage point
to

on a
I
listener. Having made this strong balcony, the kinaesthetic and tactile
statement,

weak
non-linguistic
I hasten

sense. To
codes
to add the disclaimer
that I intend the word "existence" in a very
pursue
are
whether
fundamentally
sensations
nonessential,
of the
and it
main

less effort processing them.

is also a processing cost
character
is natural to spend
are

(Perhaps there
in switching
i
processing modes.) From the point of view of

I
different mental entities from linguistic
codes is to walk into a hopeless the main character, items best "understood"
metaphysical quagmire. Minsky (1974) has by encoding them from long visual
compellingly argued that visual scenes can perspective are the least natural and most
in
are
principle

Nevertheless
essentially
be described by frames which

it may
conceptual
be very useful" to
networks.
effortful.

What we
nothing
are saying here is perhaps
more nor less than the conventional
!
distinguish vision-based concepts from other
concepts, because there is a specialized wisdom that the understanding process ought
not to be sensitive to the understander s

I
character to processes which operate on
them, such as mental r o t a t i o n , image style and purpose. Yet vantage point is a
magnification, etc. This heuristic argument more specific variable than the vaguer
has recently been put forward by Kosslyn and concept of purpose, and more amenable to
Pomerantz ( 1 9 7 5 ) . In other words, I am experimental manipulation. We hope in
arguing
processing modes
vantage
that

points,
different
are keyed
and have
specialized
to different
different
future
point
telling
experiments
in more
stories
to manipulate
subtle ways,
with several
such
vantage
as by
characters,
I
consequences for what is best remembered. inducing subjects to identify emotionally
with one or another character because of

i
Furthermore, the No Vantage Point group
seems to suffer in free recall from the lack similarity to self. Of course the different
of a special processing mode. Perhaps the characters will have different spatial
vantage point provides a set of higher-order perspectives in the story, and therefore
nodes in the network representing the story,
facilitating
story details.
access to the lower-order,
will experience different
sensations.
body and visual
!
REFERENCES
What ~r~ the
Intel~imence?

On the
Imolications

surface, this experiment

for

may
Artificial
Bransford, J.D., Barclay, J.R., and Franks,
J.J., Sentence memory: A constructive vs.
interpretive approach. Cognitive
I
seem barren of implications for artificial
intelligence, because smart programs might
ideally be able to reduce all sentences in a
story to an interconnected meaning
Psvcholomv, 1972, ~, 193-209.

Kintsch, W., The Reoresentation

in Memory. Hillsdale,
of
NJ:
Meaninm
Erlbaum
!
representation for which there is no memory Associates, 1974.
loss.
responses
Looking deeper, there
to such a complacent view.
of all, even if there were no memory
there is still the problem
are two
First
loss,
of the
Kosslyn, S., Effects of imagined object size
on response time in mental imagery tasks.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
I
non-uniqueness of the meaning University, 1974.
representation. From a different point of
view, the meaning of the same story can
different. In AI parlance, one might say
be Kosslyn,
imagery
S., and Pomerantz,
reconsidered:
J., Mental
An analysis of
I
that different frames are invoked, or that Pylyshyn's critique. Mimeographed.

I
different inferences (or different numbers Johns Hopkins University, 1975.
of inferences) are attached to the story

142
!
Minsky, M., A framework .for representing
knowledge. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory Memo No. 306, 1974.

Pylyshyn, Z.W., What the mind's eye tells

the mind's brain: A critique of mental
imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 1973,
80, 1-24.

Rumelhart, D., Lindsay, P., and Norman, D.,

A process model for long-term memory. In
E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds,.),
Organization of Memory. New York:
Academic Press, 1972.

Schank, R.C., and Abelson, R.P., Scripts,

plans, and knowledge. Presented at the
4th International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, August,
1975.
Winograd, T., Understanding Natural
Language. New York: Academic Press,
1972.

Table I

Mean proportions of correct recalls of story details

TyPe of Detail

Far visual Near visual Body Sensation (Overall)

Self .417 .616 .660 (.572)

Balcony •593 .613 .510 (.572)

No vantage point .476 .572 .476 (.508)

(p-value, Self
vs. Balcony) (<.05) (ns) (<.05) (ns)

143