How To Improve Spatial Skill:
Converging on Mechanism
Alexandra Morrison
Temple University
Acknowledgements
Spatial Intelligence Learning Center & Temple University Neurocognition Lab
Nora Newcombe
Jason Chein
Tim Shipley
Graduate Students
Alexandra Morrison
Shannon Fitzhugh
Research Staff
Dominique Dumay
Mike Demers Danielle Eagan Adrienne Villagomez
3 Questions
• Why Train Spatial Skills?
• How can we train spatial skills?
• What are the results of different training
approaches?
– In progress data
Why Spatial?
How did you get to San Diego for Aera?
Pack a Suitcase?
Read a map?
Navigate a busy airport?
Why Spatial?
Scientific Thought and Communication
• STEM Disciplines
–
–
–
–
Science
Technology
Engineering
Math
Why Spatial?
Predicts choice of STEM Major
– Higher spatial ability is associated with choice of STEM
major (Hedges and Chung)
• Controlling for IQ & SES
• Equal in gender
– SATM also related to choice of STEM discipline (Shae,
Lubinski, & Benbow, 2001)
How can we train spatial skills?
• Two Approaches
– Strategy 1: Train Spatial Skills
– Domain Specific Approach
– Strategy 2: Train shared mental resources
– Domain general Approach
Approach 1: Train Domain Specific Skills
• Can train spatial skills by
1.
Familiarizing participants with spatial stimuli
A.
B.
2.
geometric shapes
Shepard-Metzler Cubes
Practice spatial Transformations
Approach 1: Example of Domain
Specific Spatial Training
• Wright, Thompson, Ganis, Newcombe, & Kosslyn,
2008
– Trained in either mental rotation or paper folding
– Transferred to nontrained spatial but not verbal
task
– Results domain specific but not task specific
Approach 2:Domain General Training
• Repetitive mental exercise improves general cognitive
abilities
•Small scientific literature supports this
Approach 2: Domain General Cognitive
Training
An emerging science of cognitive training …
Demonstrates
1. Performance also relies on general cognitive abilities
2. General cognitive abilities are both malleable &
trainable.
Approach 2: Working Memory Training
•
•
•
WM capacity is a domaingeneral resource
WM capacity predicts
performance in a broad
range of tasks(e.g., Kane et
al., 2004)
Successfully trained
•Klingberg, 2002 & 2005
• Vaerhaghen, 2004
• Jaeggi, 2008
Language
Comp.
Fluid
Verbal
Intelligence
Reasoning
Problem
Solving
WM
Spatial
Reasoning
Working Memory vs. Short Term
Memory
• Working Memory (WM)
– Simultaneous storage and processing
• Short Term Memory (STM)
– Storage only
What do we find when we compare
types of training?
• Our goals
1. Look at the malleability of spatial skills
2. Contrast different Cognitive Training Paradigms
Domain Specific
Spatial Visualization Training
Verbal Short Term Memory Training
Domain General
Verbal Working Memory Training
3. Determine Transfer Patterns
Training Methods Overview
Pre-test of cognitive skill level
Spatial
Visualization
Training
Working
Memory
Training
Short Term
Memory
Training
Post-test of cognitive skill level
Cognitive Assessment Battery
– MRT-A (Peters, 1995)
– Solid Object Mental Rotation Test (Fitzhugh, Shipley, Newcombe &
Dumay (in prep.)
– Spatial/Verbal STM
• Storage only
– Spatial/Verbal WM
• Storage + processing
– Verbal Reasoning
• Non-sense syllogisms, Inference
– Cognitive Control
• Stroop
– Spatial Reasoning
• Paper Folding, Surface Development
– Reading Comprehension
• Nelson Denny
Training Regimes
• 5 days a week – 30 min per day
• 4 weeks of training
• Trained at home while guided by lab staff
Training Type 1:
Spatial Visualization Training
• Domain Specific Spatial Training
• Introduction to 3D Visualization (Sorby, 1996)
– Focus on transforming 3D objects into 2D
representations
•
•
•
•
Isomorphic – 2D perspective rendering
Orthographic – 2D flat projections
Surface Development
Rotation about one axis
Working Memory Training
C
Glib
X
• Domain general task
Foot
•Storage + Processing
T
Prust
P
Mile
•Adaptive Difficulty
Short Term Memory Training
C
• Domain Specific Verbal
****
X
• Storage only
****
– 4s interval
T
****
P
****
• Adaptive difficulty
Results of In Progress Study (n=91)
• Examine the following Questions:
Do different types of training yield different
results?
What is the impact of each training type on:
1. Spatial Skills
2. STM (storage only)
3. WM (storage and information processing)
Differential Effects of Training
Does the type of Training Matter?
Reduction in Stroop Efect in MS
-40.00
Selective Attention (Stroop)
*
-35.00
-30.00
d = .33
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
SV
WM
STM
Which training types improve spatial
skills?
Mental Rotation (MRT-A)
Percent Change in MRT-A Score
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
*
d = .9
*
d = 1.18
*
d = 1.22
0.00
-0.10
SV
WM
STM
Which Training types increase memory storage?
Spatial STM
Verbal STM
8.00
7.00
7.00
6.00
6.00
Difference in Score Pre/Post test
Difference in Score Pre/Post test
8.00
5.00
4.00
*
3.00
2.00
*
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
SV
-1.00
24
WM
STM
*
SV
-1.00
http://www.spatialintelligence.org
WM
STM
Which Training types improve storage and processing of
information?
Verbal WM
8.00
7.00
*
6.00
d = .49
5.00
*
4.00
d = .39
3.00
2.00
1.00
SV
25
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
*
d = .48
*
d = .44
2.00
*
d = .35
1.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
Spatial WM
7.00
Change in Score on Symmetry Span
Change in Score on Operation Span
8.00
WM
SV
STM
-1.00
WM
STM
Summary – Spatial Visualization Training
– SV training transfers to other spatial measures
• Mental Rotation
• Surface Development
• Spatial Working Memory
– No transfer to verbal tasks
– Domain specific but not task specific!
Summary Working Memory Training
– WM training transfers to non-trained domains
• WM training  spatial visualization measures
• Also transferred to cognitive control measure
Summary Short Term Memory Training
– Transfer to verbal tasks
– Some Transfer to spatial tasks
• May approximate WM training at longer list lengths
(Unsworth & Engle, 2007)
Future Directions
• Trivia Training Control Group
• Examine eye movement data
– Looks like Spatial training and WM may improve
by different mechanisms
• 3 month follow-up
– Are improvements stable?
Thank You!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nora Newcombe
Jason Chein
Tim Shipley
Shannon Fitzhugh
Danielle Eagan
Dominique Dumay
Mike Demers
Adrienne Villagomez
**This research was supported by a National Science Foundation grant to support the
Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center (No. SBE0541957)