Spatial Cognition can be a misleading term. One of the authors first assessments is that one could argue all cognition involves space or exists in space, but it is important to distinguish between cognition that occurs within space and cognition that occurs about spatial relations, the latter being the concern of this paper. Spatial cognition also varies between individuals or sensors, given its interpretive mental component.
I find that unlike other topics we’ve examined as a class, spatial cognition plays a large role in one’s everyday life, but one does not realize this (at least consciously) until the term is defined. This unrealized component best fall under the second task involving spatial cognition, but also includes components of tasks three and four. I find these three categories to compose the most common and basic type of spatial cognition employed by most humans on a daily basis. Task 1 would have fit into this category before the mass production and utilization of mapping technology.
I am reminded of our explorations of Inuit way-findings and how this difference in spatial cognition is entirely dependent on the use of technology. For iInuits, way-finding is a method of spatial cognition employed on a daily basis, similarly to use of spatial language, acquiring knowledge from direct experience, and using spatially iconic symbolic representations. This article has shed new light on the potential damage of cultural dissemination from settlers, mainly through the use of GPS. In my own experience, the application and utilization of the other tasks outlined on page 251 are very organic and uninhibited in nature. There is an individual freedom but collective benefit for each person gathering information from their environment and relaying or using this information. The impact of the GPS on Inuit culture and livelihood is not nearly as benevolent, but is rather a rapid and damaging infiltration that imposes on the six tasks outlined in Montello’s paper.
Smitty_1