Nearness as context-dependent expression: an integrative review of modeling, measurement and contextual properties

References

• Allen, G. L. (1997). From knowledge to words to wayfinding: Issues in the production and comprehension of route directions. In S. C. Hirtle & A. U. Frank (Eds.), Spatial information theory A theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1997 (Vol. 1329, pp. 363–372). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Altman, D. (1994). Fuzzy set theoretic approaches for handling imprecision in spatial analysis. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 8(3), 271–289. doi:10.1080/02693799408902000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashley, A., & Carlson, L. A. (2007). Encoding direction when interpreting proximal terms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7), 1021–1044. doi:10.1080/01690960701190298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baird, J. C., Wagner, M., & Nomu, E. (1982). Impossible cognitive spaces. Geographical, 14(3), 204–216.
   Google Scholar
• Barclay, M., & Galton, A. (2013). Selection of reference objects for locative expressions: The importance of knowledge and perception. In T. Tenbrink, J. Wiener, & C. Claramunt (Eds.), Representing space in cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barouni, F., & Moulin, B. (2015). An intelligent spatial proximity system using neurofuzzy classifiers and contextual information. Geomatica, 69(3), 285–296. doi:10.5623/cig2015-303
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1985). Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 629–654. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barwise, J., & Seligman, J. (1997). Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, J. (2010a). Language and Space: A two-level semantic approach based on principles of ontological engineering. International Journal of Speech Technology, 13(1), 29–48. doi:10.1007/s10772-010-9069-x
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, J. (2010b). Situating spatial language and the role of ontology: Issues and outlook. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(8), 639–664. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00226.x
   Google Scholar
• Bateman, J., Hois, J., Ross, R., & Tenbrink, T. (2010). A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing. Artificial Intelligence, 174(14), 1027–1071. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateman, J., Tenbrink, T., & Farrar, S. (2007). The role of conceptual and linguistic ontologies in interpreting spatial discourse. Discourse Processes, 44(3), 175–212. doi:10.1080/01638530701600912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazire, M., Bazire, M., Brézillon, P., & Brézillon, P. (2005). Understanding context before using it. In A. Dey, B. Kokinov, D. Leake, & R. Turner (Eds.), Modeling and using context. CONTEXT 2005 (Vol. 3554, pp. 29–40). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Bera, R., & Claramunt, C. (2003). Topology-based proximities in spatial systems. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5(4), 353–379. doi:10.1007/s10109-003-0115-y
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Martin, E. (2002). Foundations for a formalism of nearness. In R. I. McKay & J. Slaney (Eds.), AI 2002: Advances in artificial intelligence. AI 2002 (Vol. 2557, pp. 71–82). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., Martin, E., & Mihye, K. (2004). Developing an ontology of spatial relations. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Knight (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design III (pp. 163–182). Sidney, Australia: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Martin, E. (2006). Membership functions for spatial proximity. In A. Sattar & B. Kang (Eds.), AI 2006: Advances in artificial intelligence (Vol. 4304, pp. 942–949). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. (2009). A framework for modelling spatial proximity [PhD Thesis]. University of New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J., & Martin, E. (2012). Spatial proximity is more than just a distance measure. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(1), 88–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs, R. (1973). Urban cognitive distance. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment (pp. 361–388). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, C. M., Kaufmann, P. J., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2008). Trip chaining behavior in multi- destination shopping trips: A field experiment and laboratory replication. Journal of Retailing, 84(1), 29–38. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burigo, M., & Coventry, K. R. (2010). Context affects scale selection for proximity terms. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10(4), 292–312. doi:10.1080/13875861003797719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burigo, M., Coventry, K. R., & Cangelosi, A. (2016). Spatial language and converseness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, R. W. (1979). Memory for urban geography. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(1), 147–154. doi:10.1080/14640747908400714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, G., Wang, H., & MacEachren, A. M. (2003). Communicating vague spatial concepts in human-GIS interactions: A collaborative dialogue approach. In W. Kuhn, M. F. Worboys, & S. Timpf (Eds.), Spatial information theory. foundations of geographic information science. COSIT 2003 (Vol. 2825, pp. 287–300). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, G. (2007). Contextualization of geospatial database semantics for human–GIS interaction. GeoInformatica, 11(2), 217–237. doi:10.1007/s10707-006-0001-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai, G. (2009). Modelling contextual knowledge for adaptive geographic visualization. In H. Lin & M. Batty (Eds.), Virtual geographic environment (pp. 151–163). Beijing, China: Science Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, G., Wang, H., MacEachren, A. M., & Fuhrmann, S. (2005). Natural conversational interfaces to geospatial databases. Transactions in GIS, 9(2), 199–221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00213.x
   Google Scholar
• Canneyt, S. V., Crommenlaan, G., Schockaert, S., Laere, O. V., & Dhoedt, B. (2012). Using social media to find places of interest: A case study. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Crowdsourced and Volunteered Geographic Information, ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Carbon, C.C. (2007). Autobahn people: Distance estimations between german cities biased by social factors and the. In T. Barkowsky, M. Knauff, G. Ligozat, & D. R. Montello (Eds.), Spatial cognition V: Reasoning, action, interaction (Vol. 4387, pp. 489–500). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Carbon, C.C., & Leder, H. (2005). The wall inside the brain: Overestimation of distances crossing the former iron curtain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 746–750. doi:10.3758/BF03196767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. A., & Covey, E. S. (2005). How far is “near”? Inferring distance from spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(5), 617–631. doi:10.1080/01690960400023501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. A., & Kenny, R. (2006). Interpreting spatial terms involves simulating interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(4), 682–688. doi:10.3758/BF03193981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. A., & Logan, G. D. (2001). Using spatial terms to select an object. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 883–892. doi:10.3758/BF03196417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, L. A., & Van Deman, S. R. (2004). The space in spatial language. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(3), 418–436. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohn, A. G., & Renz, J. (2008). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation Chap. 13. (pp. 551–596). Amsterdam, Oxford: Elsevier B.V.
   Google Scholar
• Costello, F. J., & Kelleher, J. D. (2006). Spatial prepositions in context: The semantics of near in the presence of distractor objects. Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions. Preposition’06.
   Google Scholar
• Couclelis, H., Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., & Tobler, W. (1987). Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 7(2), 99–122. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(87)80020-8
   Google Scholar
• Coventry, K. R. (2013). On the mapping between spatial language and the vision and action systems. In Y. Coello & A. Bartolo (Eds.), Language and action in cognitive neuroscience cognitive neuroscience Chap. Chapter 11. (pp. 209–225). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coventry, K. R., & Garrod, S. C. (2004). Saying, seeing, and acting: The psychological semantics of spatial prepositions. In Essays in cognitive psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crangle, C., & Suppes, P. (1989). Geometrical semantics for spatial prepositions. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 14(1), 399–422. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1989.tb00200.x
   Google Scholar
• Crangle, C., & Suppes, P. (1994). Language and learning for robots. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). The role of the gricean maxims in the generation of referring expressions. Cognitive Science, 18(2), 233–263. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1902_3
   Google Scholar
• Dao, T. H. D., & Thill, J. C. (2009). Contextualized space-time accessibility modeling and measurements with NeuroFuzzy proximity relations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Geographic Information Systems and Web Services. GEOWS 2009 (pp. 158–164). IEEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Dehane, S. (1997). The number sense: How the mind creates mathematics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delboni, T. M., Borges, K. A. V., Laender, A. H. F., & Jr, C. A. D. (2007). Semantic expansion of geographic web queries based on natural language positioning expressions. Transactions in GIS, 11(3), 377–397. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2007.01051.x
   Google Scholar
• Denofsky, M. E. (1976). How near is near? a near specialist. AI Memo No. 344. Cambridge: Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Derungs, C., & Purves, R. S. (2016). Mining nearness relations from an n-grams web corpus in geographical space. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 16(4), 301–322. doi:10.1080/13875868.2016.1246553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(1), 4–7. doi:10.1007/s007790170019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolbear, C., Hart, G., & Goodwin, J. (2007). From theory to query: Using ontologies to make explicit imprecise spatial relationships for database querying. Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2007).
   Google Scholar
• Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Cognitive maps and spatial behaviour: Process and products. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. New Brunswick, Canada: Aldine Transactions.
   Google Scholar
• Egenhofer, M. J., & Mark, D. M. (1995). Naive geography. In Spatial information theory A theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1995 September (Vol. 988, pp. 1–15). LNCS.
   Google Scholar
• Ekman, G., & Bratfisch, O. (1965). Subjective distance and emotional involvement. A psychological mechanism. Acta psychologica, 24(5), 430–437. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(65)90027-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferenz, K. (2000). The role of nongeometric information in spatial language [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, P. (2000). Sorites paradox and vague geographies. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113(1), 7–18. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00009-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, P. F., & Orf, T. M. (1991). An investigation of the meaning of near and close on a university campus. Comput. Envrion. And Urban Systems, 15(1–2), 23–35. doi:10.1016/0198-9715(91)90043-D
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flushing, E. F., Gambardella, L. M., & Di Caro, G. A. (2013). Strategic control of proximity relationships in heterogeneous search and rescue teams. Proceedings of the 3rd IROS Workshop on Robots and Sensors integration in future rescue INformation system. ROSIN, Tokyo.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, A. U. (1992). Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 3(4), 343–371. doi:10.1016/1045-926X(92)90007-9
   Google Scholar
• Frank, A. U. (1996). Qualitative spatial reasoning: Cardinal directions as an example. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 10(3), 269–290. doi:10.1080/02693799608902079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, A. U. (2006). Twenty years of reasoning with spatial relations. In P. Fischer (Ed.), Classics from IJGIS: Twenty years of the international journal of geographical information science and systems (pp. 353–361). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freundschuh, S. M. (1998). Cognitive distance at various geographic scales. In M. J. Egenhofer & R. Golledge (Eds.), Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems (pp. 212–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gahegan, M. (1995). Proximity operators for qualitative spatial reasoning. In A. U. Frank & W. Kuhn (Eds.), Spatial information theory A theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1995 (Vol. 4128, pp. 31–44). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Galton, A. (2009). Spatial and temporal knowledge representation. Earth Science Informatics, 2(3), 169–187. doi:10.1007/s12145-009-0027-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gapp, K.-P. (1995). Object localization: Selection of optimal reference objects. In A. U. Frank & W. Kuhn (Eds.), Spatial information theory - A theoretical basis for GIS. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Golledge, R. G., & Zannaras, G. (1973). Cognitive approaches to the analysis of human spatial behaviour. In W. Ittelton (Ed.), Environmental cognition (pp. 59–94). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 43–58). Syntax and Semantics. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grütter, R., Helming, I., Speich, S., & Bernstein, A. (2011). Rewriting queries for web searches that use local expressions. 5th International Symposium on Rules. RuleML 2011 (pp. 345–359). Barcelona.
   Google Scholar
• Grütter, R., Scharrenbach, T., & Waldvogel, B. (2010). Vague spatio-thematic query processing: A qualitative approach to spatial closeness. Transactions in GIS, 14(2), 97–109. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01185.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gryl, A., Moulin, B., Kettani, D., Gryll, A., Moulin, B., & Kettani, D. (2002). A conceptual model for representing verbal expressions used in route descriptions. In Spatial language (pp. 19–42).
   Google Scholar
• Guesgen, H. W. (2002). Reasoning about distance based on fuzzy sets. Applied Intelligence, 17(3), 265–270. doi:10.1023/A:1020087332413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guesgen, H. W., & Albrecht, J. A. (2000). Imprecise reasoning in geographic information systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 113(1), 121–131. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00016-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurevych, I., Porzel, R., & Malaka, R. (2006). In context: Integrating domain- and situation- specific knowledge. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), SmartKom - foundations of multimodal dialogue systems (pp. 269–284). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hahn, J., Fogliaroni, P., Frank, A. U., & Navratil, G. (2016). A computational model for context and spatial concepts. In T. Sarjakoski, Y. S. Maribel, & L. T. Sarjakoski (Eds.), Geospatial Data in a Changing World: Selected Papers of the 19th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science (pp. 3–19). Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, M. M., & Jones, C. B. (2012). Cultural and language influences on the interpretation of spatial prepositions. In GI_Forum 2012: Geovisualization, society & learning. Berlin/Offenbach.
   Google Scholar
• Hand, D. J. (1996). Statistics and the theory of measurement. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A(159), 445–492. doi:10.2307/2983326
   Google Scholar
• Hart, G., & Dolbear, C. (2013). Linked data: A geographic perspective. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hawes, N., Klenk, M., Lockwood, K., Horn, G. S., & Kelleher, J. D. (2012). Towards a cognitive system that can recognize spatial regions based on context. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 200–206). AAAI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, T., & Goodwin, J. (2011). linking government data for government and consumer applications. In D. Wood (Ed.), Linking government data (pp. 73–92). New York, NY: Springer New York.
   Google Scholar
• Hedblom, M. M., Kutz, O., & Neuhaus, F. (2015). Image schemas as families of theories. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop, C3GI (pp. 19–33). Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• Helming, I., Bernstein, A., Grütter, R., & Vock, S. (2011). Making close to suitable for web search a comparison of two approaches.Iin Proceedings of the Terra Cognita Workshop on Foundations, Technologies and Applications of the Geospatial Web, In conjunction with the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2011), Bonn.
   Google Scholar
• Hérnandez, D. (1994). Qualitative representation of spatial knowledge. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Hernández, D., Clementini, E., & Di Felice, P. (1995). Qualitative distances. In Spatial information theory a theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1995 (Vol. 988, pp. 45–57). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Herskovits, A. (1986). Language and spatial cognition: An interdisciplinary study of the prepositions in English. In Studies in natural language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirtle, S. C., & Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition, 3(13), 208–217. doi:10.3758/BF03197683
   Google Scholar
• Hourihan, K. J., & Jones, L. E. (1979). Distance estimation and cognitive mapping: A multidimensional scaling analysis. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 79–94. doi:10.1080/03033910.1979.10557638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbard, R. (1978). A review of selected factors conditioning consumer travel behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(1), 1. doi:10.1086/208709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hund, A. M., & Plumert, J. M. (2007). What counts as by? Young children’s use of relative distance to judge nearbyness. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 121–133. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.121
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huriot, J.-M., Smith, T. E., & Thisse, J.-F. (1989). Minimum-cost distances in spatial analysis. Geographical Analysis, 21(4), 294–315. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1989.tb00898.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingene, C. A., & Ghosh, A. (1990). Consumer and produced behaviour in a multiprpose shopping environment. Geographical Analysis, 22(1), 70–93. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1990.tb00197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93–129. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelleher, J. D., & Kruijff, G.-J. M. (2005). A context-dependent algorithm for generating locative expressions in physically situated environments. In G. Wilcock, K. Jokinen, C. Mellish, & E. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation. ENLG (pp. 68–74). Aberdeen.
   Google Scholar
• Kelleher, J. D., & Costello, F. J. (2009). Applying computational models of spatial prepositions to visually situated dialog. Computational Linguistics, 35(2), 271–306. doi:10.1162/coli.06-78-prep14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelleher, J. D., Kruijff, G.-J. M., & Costello, F. J. (2006). Proximity in context: An empirically grounded computational model of proximity for processing topological spatial expressions. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Compuational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the ACL (pp. 745–752). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (1999). ‘Near’ and ‘far’ in language and perception. Cognition, 73(1), 35–63. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00040-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettani, D., Moulin,B. (1999). A spatial model based on the notions of spatial conceptual map and of object’s influence areas. In C. Freska & D. M. Mark (Eds.), COSIT’99 (Vol. 988, pp. 401–416). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, A., Vasardani, M., & Winter, S. (2013). Extracting spatial information from place descriptions. Proceedings of The First ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Models of Place (COMP 2013) (pp. 62–69). New York.
   Google Scholar
• Kienast, F., Degenhardt, B., Weilenmann, B., Wäger, Y., & Buchecker, M. (2012). GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(4), 385–399. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kracht, M. (2008). Language and Space. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Linguistics, UCLA.
   Google Scholar
• Kruijff, G.-J. M., Lison, P., Benjamin, T., Jacobsson, H., & Hawes, N. A. (2007). Incremental, multi-level processing for comprehending situated dialogue in human-robot interaction. In L. Lopes, T. Belpaeme, & S. Cowley (Eds.), Symposium on Language and Robots. LangRo 2007 (pp. 1–36). Aveiro.
   Google Scholar
• Kuipers, B. (1978). Modeling spatial knowledge. Cognitive Science, 2(2), 129–153. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0202_3
   Google Scholar
• Kuipers, B. (2000). The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artificial Intelligence, 119(1), 191–233. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00017-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• LeBoeuf, R., & Shafir, E. (2009). Anchoring on the “here” and “now” in time and distance judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 81–93. doi:10.1037/a0013665
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, T. (1970). Perceived distance as a function of direction in the city. Environment and Behavior, 2(1), 40–51. doi:10.1177/001391657000200103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (1996). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25(1), 353–382. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., Guo, Q. H., Wieczorek, J., & Goodchild, M. F. (2009). Positioning localities based on spatial assertions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(11), 1471–1501. doi:10.1080/13658810802247114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd, R., & Heivlyt, C. (1987). Systematic distortions in urban cognitive maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(2), 191–207. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00153.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Sadler, D. D. (1996). A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space Chap. 13. (pp. 493–529). Cambridge, MA, USA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, B., Charlton, M., Harris, P., & Stewart, A. (2014). Geographically weighted regression with a non-euclidean distance metric: A case study using hedonic house price data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(4), 660–681. doi:10.1080/13658816.2013.865739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometria, 24(2), 178–191. doi:10.2307/1905751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D., Krantz, D. H., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1990). Foundations of measurement volume III: Representation, axiomatization, and invariance. San Diego, London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, U., & Ekman, G. (1973). Subjective geographic distance: A multidimensional comparison. Psychometrika, 38(1973), 113–122. doi:10.1007/BF02291179
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ma, Y., Kalashnikov, D. V., & Mehrotra, S. (2008). Towards managing uncertain spatial informaiton for situational awareness applications. IEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 20, 10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacEachren, A. M. (1980). Travel time as the basis of cognitive distance. The Professional Geographer, 32(1), 30–36. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1980.00030.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainwaring, S. D., Tversky, B., Ohgishi, M., & Schiano, D. J. (2003). Descriptions of simple spatial scenes in English and Japanese. Spatial Cognition & Computation Computation, 3(1), 3–42. doi:10.1207/S15427633SCC0301_2
   Google Scholar
• Maki, R. H. (1981). Categorization and distance effects with spatial linear orders. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(1), 15–22.
   Google Scholar
• Mark, D. M., Turk, A. G., & Stea, D. (2007). Progress on yindjibarndi ethnophysiography. In S. Winter, M. Duckham, L. Kulik, & B. Kuipers (Eds.), Spatial information theory. COSIT 2007 (Vol. 4736, pp. 1–19). LNCS. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Mark, D. M., & Egenhofer, M. J. (1994). Modeling spatial relations between lines and regions: Combining formal mathematical models and human subjects testing. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 21(4), 195–212.
   Google Scholar
• Marquet, O., & Miralles-Guasch, C. (2014). The Walkable city and the importance of the proximity environments for Barcelona’s everyday mobility. Cities, 42, 258–266. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P. (1986). Mental Representations of Spatial Relations. Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 87–121. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(86)90016-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P., & Diwadkar, V. A. (1997). Symmetry and asymmetry of human spatial memory. Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 160–190. doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P., Hardy, J. K., & Hirtle, S. C. (1989). Subjective hierarchies in spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 211–227. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.15.2.211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, T. P., Rump, B., & Werner, S. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 589–595. doi:10.3758/BF03196519
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, H. J., & Wentz, E. A. (2003). Representation and spatial analysis in geographic information systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 574–594. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.9303004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minock, M., & Mollevik, J. (2013). Context-dependent near and far in spatial databases via supervaluation. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 86(270019), 295–305. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2013.02.004
   Google Scholar
• Montello, D. R. (1991). The measurement of cognitive distance: Methods and construct validity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(2), 101–122. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80071-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montello, D. R. (1993). Scale and multiple psychologies of space daniel. In A. U. Frank & I. Campari (Eds.), Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1993 (Vol. 716, pp. 312–321). LNCS. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Montello, D. R. (1997). The perception and cognition of environmental distance: direct sources of information. In S. Hirtle & A. U. Frank (Eds.), Spatial information theory A theoretical basis for GIS. COSIT 1997 (Vol. 1329, pp. 297–311). LNCS. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Morrow, D. G., & Clark, H. H. (1988). Interpreting words in spatial descriptions. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3(4), 275–291. doi:10.1080/01690968808402091
   Google Scholar
• Nam, S. (1995). The semantics of locative prepositional phrases in English [PhD-Thesis]. University of California, Los Angeles.
   Google Scholar
• Nasar, J. L., Valencia, H., Omar, Z. A., Chueh, S.-C., & Hwang, J.-H. (1985). Out of sight further from mind: Destination visibility and distance perception. Environment & Behavior, 17(5), 627–639. doi:10.1177/0013916585175004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, J. (1996). The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & F. Merill Garrett (Eds.), Langauge and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Özçep, Ö. L., Grütter, R., & Möller, R. (2012a). Dynamics of a nearness relation — first results. In M. Bhatt, H. W. Guesgen, & E. Davis (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Spatio-Temporal Dynamics (STeDy 2012)
   Google Scholar
• Özçep, Ö. L., Grütter, R., & Möller, R. (2012b). Nearness rules and scaled proximity. In L. D. Raedt, C. Bessiere, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz, & P. Lucas (Eds.), ECAI 2012, 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 636–641). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oxford, Tokyo, Washington, D.C: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pareti, P., & Klein, E. (2011). Learning vague concepts for the semantic web. Proceedings of the Joint Workshop on Knowledge Evolution and Ontology Dynamics. In Conjunction with ISWC 2011. CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 784).
   Google Scholar
• Pustejovsky, J., Moszkowicz, J., & Verhagen, M. (2012). A linguistically grounded annotation language for spatial information. TAL Traitement Automatique des Langues, 53(2), 87–113.
   Google Scholar
• Qi, C., Shu, H., & Xu, A. (2006). Formal properties of cognitive distance in geographical space. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence– Workshops (ICAT’06).
   Google Scholar
• Radvansky, G., Carlson-Radvansky, L., & Irwin, D. (1995). Uncertainty in estimating distances from memory. Memory & Cognition, 23(5), 596–606. doi:10.3758/BF03197261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randell, D. A., Cui, Z., & Cohn, A. G. (1992). A spatial logic based on regions and connection. In 3rd int. conf. on knowledge representation and reasoning (Vol. 92, pp. 165–176). Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Regier, T., & Carlson, L. A. (2001). Grounding spatial language in perception: An empirical and computational investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 273–298. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.273
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richter, D., Winter, S., Richter, K.-F., & Stirling, L. (2013). Granularity of locations referred to by place descriptions. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 41, 88–99. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2013.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, F. S. (1973). Tolerance Geometry. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 14(1), 68–76. doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093890809
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, V. B. (2003). A perspective on the fundamentals of fuzzy sets and their use in geographic information systems. Transactions in GIS, 7(1), 3–30. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00127
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, M. A., & Egenhofer, M. J. (2004). Comparing geospatial entity classes: An asymmetric and context-dependent similarity measure. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(3), 229–256. doi:10.1080/13658810310001629592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roller, S., Speriosu, M., Rallapalli, S., Wing, B., & Baldridge, J. (2012). Supervised text-based geolocation using language models on an adaptive grid. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Sadalla, E. K., Burroughs, J. W., & Staplin, L. J. (1980). Reference points in spatial cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6(5), 516–528.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, M., & Kohler, J. (2004). Analyzing geographic queries. SIGIR Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval (Vol. 2).
   Google Scholar
• Schockaert, S., De Cock, M., & Kerre, E. E. (2008). Location approximation for local search services using natural language hints. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(3), 315–336. doi:10.1080/13658810701626277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwering, A., & Raubal, M. (2005). Spatial Relations for Semantic Similarity Measurement. In J. Akoka, et al. (eds), Perspectives in Conceptual Modeling (vol 3770). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/11568346_28
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, J., Flewelling, D., & Egenhofer, M. J. (1994). A qualitative spatial reasoner. In T. C. Waugh & R. G. Healey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (pp. 665–681). London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Skoumas, G., Pfoser, D., & Kyrillidis, A. (2013). On quantifying qualitative geospatial data: A probabilistic approach. Proceedings of the Second ACM International Workshop on Crowd- sourced and Volunteered Geographic Information (pp. 71–78).
   Google Scholar
• Skoumas, G., Pfoser, D., & Kyrillidis, A. (2014). Location estimation using crowdsourced geospatial narratives. arXiv, 1408.5894.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10(4), 422–437. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(78)90006-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S., & Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(6), 377–411. doi:10.1037/h0043680
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strzalecki, A. (1978). The relation between subjective distance and emotional involvement: Further experiment. Acta Psychologica, 42(5), 429–440. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(78)90025-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suppes, P. (1991). The principie of invariance with special reference to perception. In J. Doignon & J. Falmagne (Eds.), Mathematical psychology: Current Development (pp. 35–53). New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Suppes, P., Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., & Tversky, A. (1989). Foundations of measurement volume II: Geometrical, threshold, and probabilistic representations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talmy, L. (2000). How language structures space. In Toward a cognitive semantics Chap. 3. (Vol. 1, pp. 177–254). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tamminen, S., Oulasvirta, A., Toiskallio, K., & Kankainen, A. (2004). Understanding mobile contexts. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(2), 135–143. doi:10.1007/s00779-004-0263-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(3), 371–391. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tezuka, T., Kambayashi, Y., & Takakura, H. (2001). Web-based inference rules for processing conceptual geographical relationships. Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Web Information Systems Engineering, The 1st Int. Workshop on Web Geographical Information Systems (Vol. 2, pp. 14–21).
   Google Scholar
• Tezuka, T., Takakura, H., Lee, R., & Kambayashi, Y. (2001). Models for conceptual geographical prepositions based on web resource. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 5(2), 83–94.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 526–550. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(81)90019-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240. doi:10.2307/143141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turney, P. D. (1996a). The identification of context-sensitive features: A formal definition of context for concept learning. 13th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML96), Workshop on Learning in Context-Sensitive Domains (pp. 53–59). Bari.
   Google Scholar
• Turney, P. D. (1996b). The management of context-sensitive features: A review of strategies. 13th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML96), Workshop on Learning in Context-Sensitive Domains (pp. 60–66). Bari, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science (New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, B. (1992). Distortions in Cognitive Maps. Geoforum, 23(2), 131–138. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(92)90011-R
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., Taylor, H. A., & Mainwaring, S. (1997). Langage et perspective spatiale. In M. Denis (Ed.), Langage et cognition spatiale (pp. 25–50). Science Cognitives. Paris: Masson.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B. (2000). Levels and structure of spatial knowledge. In S. Freundschuh & R. Kitchin (Eds.), Cognitive mapping: Past, present, and future Chapter 3. (pp. 24–44). Frontiers of Cognitive Science. London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space. Environment & Behavior, 35(1), 66–80. doi:10.1177/0013916502238865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Benthem, J. F. A. K. (1991). The logic of time: A model-theoretic investigation into the varieties of temporal ontology and temporal discourse.(Second Edi). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• van der Zee, E., Adams, K., & Niemi, J. (2009). The influence of geometrical and nongeometrical features on the use of the lexical concepts NEAR and FAR in English and Finnish. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 9(4), 305–317. doi:10.1080/13875860903219212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Rooij, R. (2011). Vagueness, tolerance and non-transitive entailment. In P. Cintula, C. Fermüller, L. Godo, & P. Hajek (Eds.), Understanding vagueness - logical, philosophical and linguistic perspectives (Vol. 36, pp. 205–221). Studies in Logic. London: College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Vandeloise, C. (1991). Spatial prepositions: A case study from French. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vasardani, M., Winter, S., & Richter, K.-F. (2013). Locating place names from place descriptions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27(12), 2509–2532. doi:10.1080/13658816.2013.785550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vieu, L. (1991). Sémantique des relations spatiales et inférences spatio-temporelles: Une contribution à l’étude des structures formelles de l’espace en Langage Naturel [Doctoral dissertation]. Université Paul Sabatier.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, M. (1985). The metric of visual space. Perception & Psychophysics, 38(6), 483–495. doi:10.3758/BF03207058
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagner, M. (2006). The geometries of visual space. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wallgrün, J. O., Klippel, A., & Baldwin, T. (2014). Building a corpus of spatial relational expressions extracted from web documents. SIGSPATIAL ’14. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worboys, M. F. (1996). Metrics and topologies for geographic space. Advances in Geographic Information Systems Research II: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (Vol. 7), Delft, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Worboys, M. F. (2001). Nearness relations in environmental space. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(7), 633–651. doi:10.1080/13658810110061162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worboys, M. F. (2003). Communicating geographic information in context. In M. Duckham, M. F. Goodchild, & M. F. Worboys (Eds.), Foundations of geographic information science (pp. 33–45). London, New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Xiao, D., & Liu, Y. (2007). Study of cultural impacts on location judgments in Eastern China. Spatial Information Theory, 4736, 20–31.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, S., & Klippel, A. (2012). Developing nearness models from geocoding spatial entities in a news corpus. In giscience.org (pp. 1–4).
   Google Scholar
• Xu, S., & Klippel, A. (2013). Linking context and proximity through web corpus. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Geographic Information Retrieval - GIR ’13 (pp. 45–46). New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yao, X., & Thill, J.-C. (2005). How far is too far? - A statistical approach to context-contingent proximity modeling. Transactions in GIS, 9(2), 157–178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00211.x
   Google Scholar
• Zwarts, J. (2017). Spatial semantics: Modeling the meaning of prepositions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(e12241), 1–20. doi:10.1111/lnc3.12241
   Google Scholar
• Zwarts, J., & Gärdenfors, P. (2015). Locative and directional prepositions in conceptual spaces: The role of polar convexity. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 25(1), 109–138. doi:10.1007/s10849-015-9224-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwarts, J, & Winter, Y. (2000). Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 9, 169–211. doi:10.1023/A:1008384416604
   Google Scholar