To recognise objects and events in the natural world, humans form mental representations that are invariant to transformation. The existence of invariant representations allows entities to be recognised and categorised despite changes in their surface properties, which is called ‘generalisation’. The formation of invariances has been most extensively studied in the case of visual object recognition. For example, we have no trouble recognising a teapot that is moved to a new location (translated), tipped on its side (rotated) or viewed from afar (rescaled). How we do so has provoked diverse theories based on assembly from geometric primitives (Biederman, 1987; Marr, 1982), associative learning (Rock and DiVita, 1987; Wallis and Bülthoff, 1999), and function approximation in deep networks (Lindsay, 2021).

A core problem in cognitive science, however, is how we form invariances over entities that are defined by more abstract relational properties. Here, we use the term ‘concepts’ to refer to objects or events that are defined by shared relations among features that may unfold in space, or time, or both, in any modality (Tenenbaum et al., 2011). For example, the concept of a ‘tree’ implies an entity whose structure is defined by a nested hierarchy, whether this is a physical object whose parts are arranged in space (such as an oak tree in a forest) or a more abstract data structure (such as a family tree or taxonomic tree). The concept of a ‘ring’ implies an entity whose features are arranged cyclically, whether a physical ring (worn on the finger), the (circular) temporal pattern of tones in a peal of bells, or the periodicity in the passage of the seasons (Kemp and Tenenbaum, 2008). Despite great changes in the surface properties of oak trees, family trees, and taxonomic trees, humans perceive them as different instances of a more abstract concept defined by the same relational structure. The human ability to readily form invariances over abstract concepts remains a puzzle for both cognitive and neural scientists hoping to understand neural computations, and a challenge for AI researchers wishing to build intelligent agents.

One prominent theory argues that we learn invariant concepts because of the way the brain represents physical space (Behrens et al., 2018; Bellmund et al., 2018; Summerfield et al., 2020; Gärdenfors, 2000; Tversky, 2001). This argument states that neurons coding for positions in either egocentric (viewer-centred) or allocentric (world-centred) space can be recycled to represent locations in more abstract spaces, defined by continuous variation in features (e.g. red to blue, quiet to loud). This theory is backed up by proof-of-concept computational simulations (Whittington et al., 2020), and by findings that brain regions thought to be critical for spatial cognition in mammals (such as the hippocampal-entorhinal complex and parietal cortex) exhibit neural codes that are invariant to relational transformations of nonspatial stimuli (Park et al., 2021; Park et al., 2020; Mack et al., 2018; Constantinescu et al., 2016; Viganò and Piazza, 2020). However, whilst promising, this theory lacks direct empirical evidence. Here, we set out to provide a strong test of the idea that learning about physical space scaffolds conceptual generalisation. Our focus is on the ability to generalise knowledge about the relations among items in a sequence as they are translated or rotated through both spatial and nonspatial domains.

In the four studies described here, participants made category judgments about a sequence of four successive stimuli in either auditory, visual, or spatial modalities. In auditory and visual modalities, the stimulus was drawn from a two-dimensional (2D) feature manifold (e.g. a bivariate ‘space’ defined by colour and shape in the visual modality or pitch and timbre in the auditory modality). In the spatial modality, each stimulus was a position in physical space (e.g. an $x$ and $y$ coordinates). Concepts were defined by a common pattern of transitions through either feature space or physical space. Our research question concerned the conditions under which concepts could be recognised, even if their corresponding transition vectors had been translated or rotated. We studied generalisation of transition vectors both within the same feature space and to new feature spaces in the same modality.

Our studies measure the tendency to generalise by both translation and rotation. Conceptual translation occurs when feature values are shifted in either dimension, but with no change in their relational pattern. There is already good evidence that nonspatial concepts are represented in a translation-invariant format. For example, in the auditory domain, we can recognise ‘auditory objects’ that are translated in feature space (e.g. pitch and timbre). This occurs when we understand the same sentence from different speakers, or identify the same melody played with different musical instruments (Winkler et al., 2009; Griffiths and Warren, 2004). However, much less is known about the learning of rotational invariances for abstract concepts. In physical space, we readily learn rotation-invariant object representations (allowing us to recognise an upside-down teapot), and the computational mechanisms by which we do so have been a major fulcrum of debate in the vision sciences (Rock and DiVita, 1987; Wallis and Bülthoff, 1999). But whether participants can learn rotationally invariant concepts in nonspatial domains, i.e., those that are defined by sequences of visual and auditory features (rather than by locations in physical space, defined in Cartesian or polar coordinates) is not known. In the current study, we first test this, and find that naively, they cannot. Next, turning to our main hypothesis, we then ask if first teaching participants to map nonspatial features to spatial locations (providing a spatial scaffold) allows the learning of rotational invariances, even in nonspatial modalities. We find that it does. This shows that a form of generalisation that is not usually possible for humans becomes possible when their understanding of the concept is ‘scaffolded’ by first learning a corresponding spatial representation. This thus supports the theory that abstract concept learning is linked to our understanding of physical space.

On each trial, participants were presented with a sequence of four auditory, visual, or spatial stimuli (a quadruplet) drawn from 1 of 16 points on a continuously varying 2D (4×4) feature manifold. In the visual (auditory) modality, this manifold was respectively defined by two orthogonal and continuously varying visual (auditory) features. In the spatial domain, the 2D feature manifold was defined by positions in physical space, in either Cartesian or polar coordinates (see Figure 1D, Figure 1—figure supplements 1–2). Each quadruplet was constructed by first sampling a random point on the 2D feature manifold, and then iteratively choosing three further adjacent feature locations to make a sequence of four stimuli. In each experiment, there were three categories (Figure 1C). Each category was initially defined by a canonical set of transition vectors, which specified the three successive steps on the feature manifold (defining the positions from which stimuli in the quadruplet were sampled). Thus, for example, one set of transition vectors might be defined by compass directions {NE, W, SE}. This would mean that after an initial stimulus was sampled, the second stimulus in the sequence would be the one NE in feature space, and the third W of that, and the fourth SE of that. We define rotational generalisation as the ability to recognise regularities in the sequence transition vectors that are independent of both translation and rotation. Thus, just as an upside-down teapot can still be recognised by the relative spatial relations among its handle, body, and spout, in Exp. 1 we asked whether concepts can be recognised when their associated transition vectors are rotated (e.g. vector sequence {NE, W, SE} on the feature manifold becomes {NW, S, NE} after 90° rotation). Note that in our study, quadruplets are also randomly translated on the manifold by virtue of the variable initial feature selection between trials. We thus make the basic assumption that rotational generalisation also involves translation invariance.

Figure 1 with 6 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Our basic procedure was as follows. During training (120 trials), participants first learned to assign canonical (0° rotation) quadruplets to one of three categories using a button press, receiving fully informative feedback after each response (see Figure 1—figure supplement 3). Then, during test, participants performed a further 210 trials, half of which were identical to training (with feedback) while the other half were transfer trials involving categorisation of quadruplets whose feature transition vectors were rotated by 90°, 180°, or 270°. These novel quadruplets were either sampled from the same 2D feature manifold (e.g. colour and spikiness in the visual case; near transfer condition) or a new 2D feature manifold from the same modality (e.g. transparency and squareness; far transfer condition; see Figure 1D, Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Transfer trials received no feedback, allowing us to infer what knowledge was being generalised between training and transfer. Exp. 1–3 were pre-registered at https://osf.io/z9572/registrations.

Concepts defined by spatial locations, but not auditory or visual features, are rotation-invariant

In Exp. 1, we recruited three cohorts of online participants (N=50 each, see Figure 2) to perform the task in the auditory, visual, and spatial modalities. These conditions differed only in how the feature manifold was defined: e.g., fundamental frequency and modulation frequency for auditory features (Figure 2A); e.g., spikiness and colour for visual features (Figure 2E); e.g., horizontal and vertical position for spatial locations (Figure 2I). Accuracy on training trials for each modality is shown in Figure 2B, F, and J. Participants learned the task well in all three conditions (but better in the spatial modality: intercept β=2.90 ± 0.19, slope associated with the auditory modality β=–1.91 ± 0.27, p<0.001, slope associated with the visual modality, β=–1.57 ± 0.26, p<0.001, mixed logistic regression on the probability of a correct response with participants as random effect). However, our main question was how participants would generalise learning to novel, rotated exemplars of the same concept.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

To test this, we fit a family of quantitative models jointly to the training and transfer trials. To understand the logic of this modelling exercise, it is necessary to consider the alternative strategies that participants may have learned during training. Whereas rotation requires participants to represent both dimensions of the feature manifold (a rotation of 90° is only discernible in 2D), a viable alternative strategy during training is to base categorical decisions on a single feature (e.g. either spikiness or colour but not both). Each quadruplet consists of four adjacent feature locations forming a square on the feature manifold (Figure 2D) and thus the stimulation sequence comprises two features from each dimension. Thus, for example, if a participant attended only to spikiness, the four stimuli in a quadruplet would be represented as a feature pattern over spikiness levels (such as ABAB or ABBA, where A=more spiky, B=less spiky). During training, participants could learn to map these patterns onto categories, either in a signed fashion (e.g. ABAB maps to one category and BABA to another) or an unsigned fashion (ABAB and BABA both map to the same category). These strategies would lead to perfect performance during training, but would prevent the learning of rotational invariances. We built models that implemented these 1D strategies, which we call 1D_s and 1D_u respectively, and compared them to models that used both dimensions for categorisation (the 2D model) or were simply responding randomly (R models). Each of these models predicts a unique pattern of generalisation (Figure 1—figure supplements 4–5) and only the 2D model predicts that participants will assign rotated objects to the same category as their unrotated counterparts (rotational generalisation). Thus, the principal metrics we report in this study are the fraction of (non-random) subjects classified as 1D vs. 2D on transfer trials, which is a signature of whether the experimental conditions permitted the learning of rotational invariances for quadruplets. We report both fractions of participants (X/X best fit by each model) and Bayes factors (BF) reflecting the relative likelihood of 1D vs. 2D models between conditions.

Consistent with our first pre-registered prediction, Exp. 1 revealed a striking dissociation in rotational generalisation between modalities. For near transfer, all non-random participants in the auditory and visual modality (26/26 and 38/38) learned a 1D_u strategy, whereas the vast majority in the spatial modality (35/41) were best fit by a 2D strategy. Bayesian group model comparison confirmed that the frequency of 1D vs 2D models among non-random participants was similar between the auditory and visual modalities (BF=0.1, ‘negative’ evidence for a difference) but different between the auditory and spatial modalities (BF>100, ‘decisive’ evidence for a difference) and the visual and spatial modalities (BF>100; see Tables 6–9 for full results). This implies that the use of a 1D strategy (implying no rotational generalisation) was much more likely than a 2D strategy (implying rotational generalisation) when the manifold was defined by visual or auditory features (e.g. colour and shape or pitch and timbre), but the converse was true when the feature manifold was defined by coordinates in physical space (e.g. horizontal and vertical position).

For far transfer, the results were very similar. In the auditory modality, all non-random participants (26/26) were again best fit by a 1D_u strategy, and in the visual modality, most (30/35) were fit by a 1D_u strategy, 5/35 by a 1D_s strategy, and none by a 2D strategy (difference between auditory and visual, BF = 0.1). By contrast, in the spatial modality, where far transfer involved remapping from cardinal to polar coordinates or vice versa, almost all non-random participants (29/31) were again best fit by a 2D strategy (both BF>100 comparing with the auditory and visual modalities, ‘decisive’ evidence for a difference). Behaviour in each modality of Exp. 1 is illustrated in Figure 2, where we display category assignments under each rotation for participants allocated to distinct model classes on the basis of held-out data. Together, these data show definitively that, when categories were characterised by temporal patterns in spatial location (e.g. where transitions in physical space were aligned with those on the feature manifold), participants learned to represent the 2D structure of the concept, and generalised readily to rotated (as well as translated) exemplars. However, when concepts were defined by patterns of nonspatial auditory or visual features, participants learned mappings to each category by relying on a single feature dimension and thus failed to form rotational invariant representations.

Spatial pre-training provides a scaffold for rotational generalisation in the auditory and visual modalities

Exp. 1 shows that rotational generalisation succeeds for spatial concepts but fails for nonspatial concepts. Next, in Exp. 2 we tested our main prediction: that space can be used as a scaffold for rotational generalisation of nonspatial concepts. We recruited three new cohorts of participants (N=50 each, see Figure 3) to perform a multi-phase task that unfolded over 2 successive days. On day 1, participants received 60 pre-training trials in the pre-training modality. These trials matched training trials in Exp. 1 for the corresponding modality (spatial or visual) except that they comprised both canonical (0°) and 90° rotated quadruplets, but not those rotated by 180° or 270° (we included examples of rotated quadruplets in the training set to encourage rotational generalisation, but as shown in Exp. 3, results do not depend on this choice). Subsequently, participants performed 288 trials of a multimodal association task, in which they learned the association between each of the 16 stimuli in the pre-training modality and their corresponding stimulus in a different testing modality, where the corresponding stimulus occupied an equivalent position on the 2D feature manifold (we call this the ‘mapping task’). The goal of this task was to teach participants’ correspondences between either spatial and visual, spatial and auditory, or visual and auditory feature manifolds. Then on day 2, after some refresher pre-training and mapping trials, participants performed the same task as in Exp. 1 in the testing modality, again with the exception that training trials also included 90° rotated quadruplets.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Our pre-registered prediction for Exp. 2 was that when (Cartesian) physical space was the pre-training modality, participants would now (in contrast to Exp. 1) learn using a predominantly 2D strategy in both auditory (Exp. 2a) and visual (Exp. 2b) testing modalities. In other words, by learning the association between auditory or visual features and a corresponding spatial location, concepts composed of exclusively nonspatial features could now be generalised over rotations in a way not exhibited by a single participant in Exp. 1a or Exp. 1b. By way of control, however, we predicted that when the pre-training involved (nonspatial) visual features, no such benefit would occur, and participants would fail to show rotational invariance.

This is exactly what we found, for both near and far transfer. In the near transfer condition, with spatial pre-training, 29/37 non-random participants were best fit by a 2D strategy when audition was the testing modality, and 36/40 when vision was the testing modality. By contrast, however, participants who underwent visual (rather than spatial) pre-training failed to show a benefit when audition was the testing modality. In fact, most (37/50) were best fit by the random model (see below), with 6/13 non-random participants favouring a 1D_s strategy. We once again calculated BF at the group level to assess the reliability of these results. We found that BFs exceeded 100, providing ‘decisive’ evidence that the 2D model was more favoured among the groups with spatial pre-training than that without. Similarly, in the far transfer condition, spatial pre-training allowed 29/38 participants in the auditory modality and 13/16 participants in the visual modality to successfully generalise via a 2D strategy. This was not the case for participants who experienced visual pre-training (again, frequency of 1D vs 2D models between conditions: BF>100, ‘decisive’). In other words, spatial pre-training provided an effective scaffold that allowed participants to learn auditory and visual objects in a 2D representational format that permitted generalisation to novel rotated exemplars.

Participants in Exp. 2c performed poorly during training and were more likely to be fit by the random models during transfer than those who performed the same auditory task in Exp. 1a. Indeed, we computed the BF quantifying the relative likelihood of the random (R models) vs all other models (1D and 2D models) and found ‘substantial’ evidence in favour of a difference between groups both in near transfer (BF = 7.4) and in far transfer (BF = 2.7). This might seem curious, because Exp. 2 participants had access to more diverse training (on both 0° and 90° quadruplets) as well as the supplementary visual pre-training. Why did Exp. 2c participants struggle with the task? In fact, this phenomenon makes sense, because training with feedback on both 0° and 90° quadruplets effectively invalidates a 1D strategy, because there no longer exists a unique mapping between categories and features in either of the two feature dimensions (note that training performance in Exp. 2c plateaus close to 50%). This lack of a viable 1D strategy during training obliges participants to use a 2D strategy where possible. Because this is only possible with spatial pre-training, in Exp. 2c they revert to random. Whilst this explains what we observed in Exp. 2, it also allows a further prediction: if we remove the 90° rotated quadruplets from pre-training, then participants in the spatial pre-training modality should be somewhat less prone to use a 2D strategy (because 1D is available) whereas participants who undergo visual pre-training should show more 1D behaviour at the expense of the random model. In Exp. 3, we tested and confirmed this prediction.

Exp. 3 involved three new cohorts (N=50 each, see Figure 4) and was identical to Exp. 2, except that now pre-training trials consisted exclusively of canonical (0°) quadruplets (although 90° quadruplets were still present when the testing modality was trained on day 2). As predicted, non-random participants who enjoyed spatial pre-training were still prone to use a 2D strategy when audition was the testing modality (16/32 for near transfer and 17/31 for far transfer) as well as when vision was the testing modality (22/30 and 13/19), replicating the findings of Exp. 2. However, compared to Exp. 2, overall more participants relied on 1D strategies. In the auditory modality in Exp. 3a, 16/32 were best fit by a 1D model in the near transfer condition (9/32 1D_u and 7/32 1D_s) and 14/31 in the far transfer condition (10/31 1D_u and 4/31 1D_s). At the group level, the BF confirmed that participants were more likely to be fit by a 1D model in Exp. 3a than Exp. 2a in the auditory modality (frequency of 1D vs 2D models between Exp. 2a and Exp. 3a, near transfer BF = 3.4 ‘substantial’ evidence, far transfer BF = 1.5 ‘weak’ evidence). Similarly, in the visual modality in Exp. 3b, 8/30 were best fit by a 1D model in the near transfer condition (5/30 1D_u and 3/30 1D_s) and 6/19 in the far transfer condition (6/19 1D_u) (again, frequency of 1D vs 2D models between Exp. 2b and Exp. 3b, near transfer BF = 5.9 ‘substantial’ evidence, far transfer BF = 2.2 ‘weak’ evidence). By contrast, participants who underwent nonspatial (visual) pre-training did not use a 2D strategy (1/30) but rather preferred 1D strategies in both near transfer (13/30 1D_u and 16/30 1D_s) and far transfer conditions (10/28 1D_u and 17/28 1D_s). Comparing these results with the frequency of 1D vs 2D models in conditions with spatial pre-training (Exp. 3a and 3b), we found that all BFs exceeded 100, providing ‘decisive’ evidence that the 2D model was more favoured among the groups with spatial pre-training than that without.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Thus, these results show that training exclusively on canonical (0°) quadruplets facilitates a 1D strategy, which is expressed more readily than in Exp. 2; but that the 2D strategy is still more likely for participants who underwent spatial pre-training. Further, the results show that participants who did not experience spatial pre-training were still engaged in the task, but were not using the same strategy as the participants who experienced spatial pre-training (1D rather than 2D). Thus, the benefit of the spatial pre-training is not simply to increase the cognitive engagement of the participants. Rather, spatial pre-training provides a scaffold to learn rotation-invariant representation of auditory and visual concepts even when rotation is never explicitly shown during pre-training. Furthermore, participants are sensitive to the available strategies during pre-training, and use the 1D strategy when possible if they have not learned to associate features with space.

Spatial mapping performance predicts rotational generalisation for nonspatial modalities

Next, we used our data from Exp. 2 and Exp. 3 to study how performance on each phase of our task predicted rotational generalisation in the testing phase (see Figure 5). For each participant, we created an index of rotational generalisation (2Dness) as the difference in log-likelihood between the best 1D model and the 2D model during near transfer. We found that 2Dness was powerfully predicted by training accuracy (Pearson correlation between 2Dness and training accuracy [r_{2Dness,TRAINING}] = 0.80, p<0.001) in both Exp. 2 (r_{2Dness,TRAINING} = 0.83, p<0.001) and Exp. 3 (r_{2Dness,TRAINING} = 0.78, p<0.001). The fact that training performance is highly correlated with 2Dness implies that participants who solved the training task formed representations that were generalisable in 2D; in other words, very few participants overfit to the training set. Accordingly, participants were poorly captured by an additional model (the R’ model; 4/152 in Exp. 2, 4/151 in Exp. 3), that has perfect performance during training but responds randomly during transfer. Next, we asked whether accuracy during pre-training and mapping were systematically associated with 2Dness, and assessed their relative importance using partial correlations. Pre-training did explain unique variance in 2Dness after accounting for mapping (correlation between pre-training and 2Dness after partialling out mapping [r_{2Dness,PRETRAINING - MAPPING}]=0.17, p<0.01) and vice versa (r_{2Dness,MAPPING - PRETRAINING} = 0.27, p<0.001). However, 2Dness was better predicted by mapping than by pre-training in Exp. 2a (r_{2Dness,MAPPING - PRETRAINING} = 0.42, p<0.005 and r_{2Dness,PRETRAINING - MAPPING} = 0.30, p<0.05), Exp. 2b (r_{2Dness,MAPPING - PRETRAINING} = 0.41, p<0.005 and r_{2Dness,PRETRAINING - MAPPING} = 0.04, p=0.81), Exp. 3a (r_{2Dness,MAPPING - PRETRAINING} = 0.32, p<0.05 and r_{2Dness,PRETRAINING - MAPPING} = 0.06, p=0.70) and Exp. 3b (r_{2Dness,MAPPING - PRETRAINING} = 0.46, p<0.001 and r_{2Dness,PRETRAINING - MAPPING} = 0.33, p<0.05). The strong correlations between the mapping task performances and 2Dness suggest that learning the association between nonspatial and spatial features is the critical step that allows rotational generalisation.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

We tested and confirmed this prediction in Exp. 4 (see Figure 4—figure supplement 1) which repeated Exp. 3 except that spatial pre-training was replaced with a duration-matched filler task (in which the category is defined by the number of stationary blue stars in a sequence). Without spatial pre-training, a sizeable proportion of participants still learned a 2D strategy in both the auditory (9/30 in near transfer, 9/28 in far transfer) and visual (12/19 and 7/19) modality, although the majority relied on a 1D strategy (auditory modality: 4/30 1D_u and 17/30 1D_s for near transfer, 4/38 1D_u and 15/28 1D_s for far transfer; visual modality: 5/19 1D_u and 6/19 1D_s for near transfer, 5/14 1D_u and 2/14 1D_s for far transfer). In the auditory modality (Exp. 4a), this can be compared with Exp. 2c, where almost all participants were using a random strategy (frequency of R vs 1D/2D models, BF = 34.0, ‘strong’ evidence), and with Exp. 3c where almost no participants were using a 2D strategy (frequency of 1D vs 2D models, BF = 8.6, ‘substantial’ evidence). Thus, for ~20% participants, the mere exposure to the mapping was sufficient to benefit from the spatial scaffolding effect and actually seeing the quadruplets in the spatial modality was not necessary for them.

We studied the conditions under which participants learn rotation- and translation-invariant representations of abstract concepts. We found that participants can generalise conceptual knowledge to novel sequences (quadruplets) defined by rotations of stimulus feature transition vectors, but only if the features were themselves physical spatial locations (e.g. x, y position; Exp. 1) or if nonspatial attributes had previously been mapped to a physical spatial location in a pre-training task (Exp. 2–4). Thus, an explicit representation of physical space is a ‘scaffold’ that permits objects to be learned in a rotational-invariant fashion, and thus allows rotational generalisation. This supports the idea that neural representations of space form a critical substrate for learning abstractions in nonspatial domains (Behrens et al., 2018; Bellmund et al., 2018; Summerfield et al., 2020; Gärdenfors, 2014).

It is well known that humans learn rotational invariances for visual objects, whose features are organised in physical space. For example, an upside-down teapot can be recognised by the relative position of handle, lid, and spout. This case mimics our spatial modality condition, where each concept was a pattern of locations in physical space. It is thus perhaps unsurprising that rotational generalisation is possible in this condition. However, we found it striking that participants generalised in such different ways when the features in question were drawn from a nonspatial manifold, in either the visual or auditory domain. In these conditions, participants seemed to have no trouble recognising patterns that were consistently translated in feature space. This is consistent with previous studies that have shown that we can understand language in different accents, or name a familiar tune played at an atypical speed or pitch (Dupoux and Green, 1997). However, they did so via a representation that focused on just one of the two possible dimensions, and thus did not permit rotational generalisation. There was thus a clear dissociation between human ability to generalise patterns in physical space and a more abstract feature space.

Next, we showed that spatial pre-training allowed rotational generalisation even for sequences composed of nonspatial features. This implies that the neural representation of space may serve as a ‘scaffold’, allowing people to visualise and manipulate nonspatial concepts. One alternative explanation of this effect could be that the spatial pre-training encourages participants to attend to both dimensions of the nonspatial stimuli. By contrast, pre-training in the visual or auditory domains (where multiple dimensions of a stimulus may be relevant less often naturally) encourages them to attend to a single dimension. However, data from our control experiments, Exp. 2c and Exp. 3c, are incompatible with this explanation. Around ~65% of the participants show a level of performance in the multimodal association task (>50%) which could only be achieved if they were attending to both dimensions (performance attending to a single dimension would yield 25% and chance performance is at 6.25%). This suggests that participants are attending to both dimensions even in the visual and auditory mapping case. Rather, whilst we are not aware of previous studies that have tested spatial scaffolding in the way described here, our findings are consistent with the more general idea that space is represented in an overlapping fashion with nonspatial information, such as time or number (Dehaene et al., 2022). For example, sequences with regular spatial geometry are learned more readily than those composed of arbitrary patterns (Al Roumi et al., 2021). Our findings also cohere with evidence that visuospatial skills are correlated with a variety of academic competences, especially in STEM subjects such as maths and engineering (Stieff and Uttal, 2015), and that spatial training interventions (such as teaching mental rotation) in educational settings can improve nonspatial abilities, such as calculus grades (Sorby et al., 2013).

The idea that spatial representations form a generalised substrate for cognition – including for coding temporal structure – draws on a long tradition in philosophy (Kant, 2007), cognitive science (Gärdenfors, 2000), and neuroscience (Behrens et al., 2018; Bellmund et al., 2018; Summerfield et al., 2020). The precise substrate for this effect is unclear, but it seems likely that neural assemblies activated by physical locations in space (e.g. in parietal or medial temporal lobe areas) are recycled for representing nonspatial patterns in data. We acknowledge that our study does not provide a mechanistic model of the spatial scaffolding effect but rather delineate which aspects of the training are necessary for generalisation to happen. In our study, thus, the mapping task facilitates this recycling by teaching participants a point-to-point mapping between nonspatial feature combinations and locations in physical space. Indeed, our correlation analysis and Exp. 4 suggested that successfully learning mappings between spatial and nonspatial features was the strongest determinant of rotational generalisation. This mapping task was presented in an egocentric frame of reference defined by the x, y coordinates of the screen. Explicit representations of location in egocentric space in the primate are found in dorsal stream structures such as the posterior parietal cortex (Colby et al., 1993). Current deep networks – which successfully categorise lone objects in a natural image but often fail on tests of relational reasoning or scene understanding – may be hampered by their failure to represent space explicitly in this way (Summerfield et al., 2020).

All the effects observed in our experiments were consistent across near transfer conditions (rotation of patterns within the same feature space), and far transfer conditions (rotation of patterns within a different feature space, where features are drawn from the same modality). This shows the generality of spatial training for conceptual generalisation. This means that an explicit representation of space might be the substrate for strong forms of transfer observed in humans, such as when we understand the shared meaning between ‘red, amber, green’ at a traffic light and ‘ready, set, go’ before a race. We did not test transfer across modalities nor transfer in a more natural setting; we leave this for future studies.

Exp. 1, 2, and 3 and analyses were pre-registered. The pre-registration documents can be found at https://osf.io/z9572/registrations.

Anonymized data, code, materials and pre-registration documents are all available at https://osf.io/z9572/.

1. 1. Pesnot Lerousseau J
   2. Summerfield C

   (2023) Open Science Framework

   Space as a Scaffold for Rotational Generalisation of Abstract Concepts.

   https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z9572

1. 1. Al Roumi F
   2. Marti S
   3. Wang L
   4. Amalric M
   5. Dehaene S

   (2021) Mental compression of spatial sequences in human working memory using numerical and geometrical primitives

   Neuron 109:2627–2639.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aramaki M
   2. Kronland-Martinet R
   3. Voinier T
   4. Ystad S

   (2006) A percussive sound synthesizer based on physical and perceptual attributes

   Computer Music Journal 30:32–41.

   https://doi.org/10.1162/comj.2006.30.2.32

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Behrens TEJ
   2. Muller TH
   3. Whittington JCR
   4. Mark S
   5. Baram AB
   6. Stachenfeld KL
   7. Kurth-Nelson Z

   (2018) What Is a Cognitive Map? Organizing Knowledge for Flexible Behavior

   Neuron 100:490–509.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.10.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bellmund JLS
   2. Gärdenfors P
   3. Moser EI
   4. Doeller CF

   (2018) Navigating cognition: Spatial codes for human thinking

   Science 362:eaat6766.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6766

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Biederman I

   (1987) Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding

   Psychological Review 94:115–147.

   https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Colby CL
   2. Duhamel JR
   3. Goldberg ME

   (1993) Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: anatomic location and visual response properties

   Journal of Neurophysiology 69:902–914.

   https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1993.69.3.902

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Constantinescu AO
   2. O’Reilly JX
   3. Behrens TEJ

   (2016) Organizing conceptual knowledge in humans with a gridlike code

   Science 352:1464–1468.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0941

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. de Leeuw JR

   (2015) jsPsych: a JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser

   Behavior Research Methods 47:1–12.

   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Dehaene S
   2. Al Roumi F
   3. Lakretz Y
   4. Planton S
   5. Sablé-Meyer M

   (2022) Symbols and mental programs: a hypothesis about human singularity

   Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26:751–766.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.010

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Dupoux E
    2. Green K

    (1997) Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: effects of talker and rate changes

    Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 23:914–927.

    https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.23.3.914

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. Book

    1. Gärdenfors P

    (2000) Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought

    The MIT Press.

    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
12. Book

    1. Gärdenfors P

    (2014) The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces

    The MIT Press.

    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9629.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Griffiths TD
    2. Warren JD

    (2004) What is an auditory object?

    Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 5:887–892.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1538

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. Book

    1. Kant I

    (2007) Critique of Pure Reason H

    Palgrave Macmillan.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-10016-0

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Kass RE
    2. Raftery AE

    (1995) Bayes Factors

    Journal of the American Statistical Association 90:773–795.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Kemp C
    2. Tenenbaum JB

    (2008) The discovery of structural form

    PNAS 105:10687–10692.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802631105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Lindsay GW

    (2021) Convolutional neural networks as a model of the visual system: past, present, and future

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 33:2017–2031.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01544

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Mack ML
    2. Love BC
    3. Preston AR

    (2018) Building concepts one episode at a time: The hippocampus and concept formation

    Neuroscience Letters 680:31–38.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.07.061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. Book

    1. Marr D

    (1982)

    Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information

    MIT Press.

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Park SA
    2. Miller DS
    3. Nili H
    4. Ranganath C
    5. Boorman ED

    (2020) Map making: constructing, combining, and inferring on abstract cognitive maps

    Neuron 107:1226–1238.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.06.030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Park SA
    2. Miller DS
    3. Boorman ED

    (2021) Inferences on a multidimensional social hierarchy use a grid-like code

    Nature Neuroscience 24:1292–1301.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00916-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Rigoux L
    2. Stephan KE
    3. Friston KJ
    4. Daunizeau J

    (2014) Bayesian model selection for group studies - revisited

    NeuroImage 84:971–985.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.08.065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Rock I
    2. DiVita J

    (1987) A case of viewer-centered object perception

    Cognitive Psychology 19:280–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(87)90013-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Sorby S
    2. Casey B
    3. Veurink N
    4. Dulaney A

    (2013) The role of spatial training in improving spatial and calculus performance in engineering students

    Learning and Individual Differences 26:20–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.010

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Stieff M
    2. Uttal D

    (2015) How much can spatial training improve STEM achievement?

    Educational Psychology Review 27:607–615.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9304-8

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Summerfield C
    2. Luyckx F
    3. Sheahan H

    (2020) Structure learning and the posterior parietal cortex

    Progress in Neurobiology 184:101717.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2019.101717

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Tenenbaum JB
    2. Kemp C
    3. Griffiths TL
    4. Goodman ND

    (2011) How to grow a mind: statistics, structure, and abstraction

    Science 331:1279–1285.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192788

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. Book

    1. Tversky B

    (2001) Spatial Schemas in Depictions, Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought

    Mitpress.

    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6392.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Viganò S
    2. Piazza M

    (2020) Distance and direction codes underlie navigation of a novel semantic space in the human brain

    The Journal of Neuroscience 40:2727–2736.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1849-19.2020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Wallis G
    2. Bülthoff H

    (1999) Learning to recognize objects

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3:22–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01261-3

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Whittington JCR
    2. Muller TH
    3. Mark S
    4. Chen G
    5. Barry C
    6. Burgess N
    7. Behrens TEJ

    (2020) The tolman-eichenbaum machine: unifying space and relational memory through generalization in the hippocampal formation

    Cell 183:1249–1263.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Winkler I
    2. Denham SL
    3. Nelken I

    (2009) Modeling the auditory scene: predictive regularity representations and perceptual objects

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13:532–540.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.003

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Jacques Pesnot Lerousseau

   Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft

   For correspondence

   jacques.pesnot@hotmail.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3799-0602

2. Christopher Summerfield

   Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

• 533

  views

• 55

  downloads

• 0

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.