Training Mental Rotation: A Comparison of
Training Spatial Visualization and Working
Memory
Shannon Fitzhugh
Jason Chein
Alexandra Morrison
Nora Newcombe
Thomas F. Shipley
1
Perception and Cognition with
Spatial Representations
2
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Training
What we know about training….
•Working Memory Training improves executive function and reading comprehension
•Spatial Visualization Training improves Mental Rotation, help retain women in
STEM disciplines (engineering)
What we don’t know about training….
•What is the mechanism?
•Is the mechanism domain general (i.e. executive functioning) or domain specific (i.e.
spatial ability)
•Are the profiles of change the same for all groups of people?
3
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Experimental Design
Pre-test of cognitive skill level
Spatial
Visualization
Training
Working
Short Term
Memory Training Memory Training
Post-test of cognitive skill level
4
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Methods
•Results as Composite Z-Score
•Verbal – average z-score for all verbal assessments (Nelson Denny,
operation span)
•Spatial – average z-score for all spatial assessments(Paper-and-pencil
MRT-A, symmetry span, Paper folding (ETS), Surface development
(ETS))
•Eye-tracking
Training Paradigms
“N” times – adaptive portion
•
Verbal WM training (adaptive
complex span)
Feedback
Lexical decision Memory item
Response
“N” times – adaptive portion
4s
•
1s
Verbal STM training (adaptive
simple span)
Feedback
No Processing
Memory item
•Spatial Visualization Training
(progressive workbook;Sorby, 2003)
6
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Response
Difference in Verbal Composite Z-Scores by Training
Z-Score Difference Pre to Post Training
1
Measures:
Nelson Denny
Operation span
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Spatial Visualization
0.5
Working Memory
0.4
*
Short Term Memory
0.3
N=16
N=15
0.2
0.1
* significant at p=.05
N=21
0
Training Group
7
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Difference in Pre-Post Z-Scores
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Difference in Spatial Composite ZScores by Training
Measures:
**
N=21
**
**
N=15
MRT
Symmetry span
Paper folding
Surface
development
N=16
0.6
Spatial Visualization
Working Memory
Short Term Memory
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
** significant at p=.001
0
Training Groups
8
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Visualization Training Facilitates Encoding
Average RT Difference Pre/Post Test
0.6
Mental Rotation Reaction Time Difference by
Training Group
0.4
N=5
0.2
0
*
N=4
-0.2
Spatial
-0.4
WM
-0.6
N=4
STM
-0.8
-1
* Significant at p=.05
-1.2
-1.4
9
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Eye Tracking: Gaze Change
Working Memory
Short Term Memory
Spatial Visualization
10
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
Conclusions
•Memory training improves both verbal and spatial
abilities (improving attention).
•Visualization training improves spatial skills
(Improving encoding)
•Training effects and individual spatial abilities
•WM improves performance on WM tasks for all groups and MRT
performance for all groups
•Spatial Training improves performance on spatial tasks for high and low
ability only – non-rotators remain flat
11
http://www.spatialintelligence.org