Allan Paivio thought there was only a type of image. Subsequent studies found that there were different types of images. Por example: visual, auditory, gustatory, etc.

Object imagery are different from spatial imagery and rotation of imagery, and completly from the verbal processing.

I would not talk about tradeoff but different ways of prexessing the material to be learned.

Thank you professor Alfredo!

Based on this idea I realize I haven´t got notice about subjects who doesn´t fit the OSIVQ model criteria and score similarly high or low in the three verbal, object and spatial scales. Have you got any information about that?

Besides, particularly, do you believe it´s possible to train , for example, a "spatial subject" in order to equate his verbal or object abilities with the spatial one?

It is impossible that a person scores high or low on all three scales. It is normal that a person scores high on a scale and low in other.

It is very easy to train in an type of image. For example, rotation of images.

I have an article in pres in that we observed depending on the sport that persons practice, they use spatial image, object image or verbal processing.

Hello!

I would like to add a related question, hoping not to interrupt much. In psycholinguistics, this same question has been split off into a dichotomy: whether we process language via sensory simulations (cf. Lawrence Barsalou) or via amodal, linguistic networks (cf.  Endel Tulving). Well, in fact, recently it seems that we engage in both modes (cf. Max Louwerse). 

Now, I would like to ask professor Campos whether he could share his experience/feeling about this: do you think it is attainable, in the near future, to pin down the factors behind this interplay, by way of a systematic taxonomy? Or is that still far away, considering factors being so specific to each person, as on the study you advanced?

Thank you in advance

To learn somethink, we used a particular strategy. This estrategy can be bases on mental images (in general) or lenguage (in general).

That we use different method to learn dependes the subjects and the task we want to learn.

The more study the mental images more subdivisions of image (types of image) found.

Finally, probabley the images and language we save in our brain as propositions.

I see two separate questions.

1) The first concerns the dissociation between "spatial and object capacities".

2) what is expected from the concept of a tradeoff?

To me, the question addressed by Tiago refers to a fundamental epistemological attitude. It is confirmed by the ubquity of the dualism process observed, among others, in the brain: left vs right hemisphere, where vs what questions, central vs peripheral regions of the retina, ego vs allocentric reference in spatial location, and perhaps more generally in our separate THEN relate way of analysing brain regions.

And going more deeply in cellular activity, the Na-K opposition from which action potentials can be created via the alternative (timely adjusted) opening and closing of membrane channels.

I agree that this comparison may look far fetched. It is scientifically based on the hypothesis that general principles can be observed at many different levels (from infracellular to populations). It is the case of contrast organisation, in the retina or in the society.

As written by the physiologist Denis Noble (in The Music of Life. Biology beyond the genome. 2006), metaphores must not be taken as answers, they reveal thinking and natural processes.

Sorry for looking perhaps "non scientific", I simply consider that scientific thinking must be fed by more than formulas and data.

thank you for your attention - Françoise

there is enough evidence across cognitive neuroscience paradigms that all is a continuum, and no either or. Some may predominantly separate the spatial from the objective - but not at all levels. And neural networks are "flexible" - just that a part of the brain mostly does X does not mean it cannot do Y.

More directly to your tradeoff question: in WM there is a capacity limit, and since you will measure the spatial/objective capabilities with behavioural tasks the output is channeled through the WM system. So any task taps into a subjects preferred encoding and decoding mode, but that tells us nothing about the subjects' limits - just preferences and speed. You may have to force subjects with and without time pressure to retrieve either spatial or object features. (4 data points, 2x2 design: 2 types of instructions x with/without time pressure). If you get clean and neat correlations, let me know. Could be a messy result = low to no correlation between the 4 conditions.

In response to Pablo C De Juan Bernabéu's questions, the literature on the coordination of speech and gestures discuss the associations of construct of understanding, spatial thinking and integration into language. Articles  by Alibali (2005); Hostetter & Alibali (2007) Chu & Kita (2008); Chu & Kita (2011), and Chu et al (2014) discuss this connection between elements of spatial thinking and gesture/language.  

Hi, Molly. Thank you! I'll check those out.