Individual Differences in Spatial Ability & Expertise: Use of Spatial Transformations

Margaret R. Tarampi and Sarah H. Creem-Regehr
Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Abstract

In everyday activities, such as navigation and tool use, we rely on our ability to transform visuospatial images. For example, when giving driving directions, one must engage in spatial perspective taking, giving turn-by-turn instructions that correspond to the driver's spatial orientation. This involves rotating a mental map so that it corresponds to the appropriate orientation. Spatial transformations are also present in domain specific activities such as understanding the spatial relationships between anatomical structures in medicine (Garg, Norman, & Sperotable, 2001; Hegarty, Keehner, Khooshabeh, & Montello, 2009) and recall of the positions of chess pieces on a chessboard (Chase & Simon, 1973; De Groot, 1978). There are three distinct classes of spatial transformations: object-based (i.e., object rotation), perspective-based (i.e., body rotation), and effector-based (i.e., body-part rotation) transformations. Presumably, these different transformation processes involve different types of spatial ability as evidenced by the variation in performance found across individuals in reading maps, solving geometry problems, or playing video games (Hegarty & Waller, 2005). The existing literature on individual differences has focused on perspective-based and object-based transformations but not effector-based transformations (e.g. Hegarty & Waller, 2004; Jola & Mast, 2005). Effector-based transformations are crucial in motor simulation (i.e., imagining and performing body movements). Motor simulation is essential to understanding, learning, and generating actions.

Use and proficiency in spatial transformations may vary based on both spatial ability and spatial expertise. Spatial ability is the ability to create, maintain, and transform visual imagery (Lohman, 1979). It is multidimensional and made up of associated factors (e.g. Carroll, 1993; Poltrock & Brown, 1984). Three spatial ability factors of particular interest are spatial orientation, which is the ability to mentally transform one's perspective relative to spatial forms, spatial visualization, which is the ability to mentally transform objects, and kinesthetic imagery, which is the ability to simulate or mentally rehearse motor movement. Spatial expertise is defined as knowledge, skills, or characteristics related to spatial thinking that can be used to differentiate outstanding individuals from less outstanding individuals. Scientific research has customarily studied neuropsychological cases or dysfunction in order to gain a better understanding of functional significance. A more novel approach is to highlight superior function, which may provide better insight into how to improve in these spatial domains that are so critical to our everyday functioning (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Obler & Fein, 1988). Specifically, we hypothesize that greater spatial ability in the factors of spatial orientation, spatial visualization, and kinesthetic imagery is correlated with better performance on perspective-based, object-based, and effector-based transformations respectively. It is also predicted that processing may differ in systematic ways for spatial experts. Spatial experts, whose expertise relies on the utilization of specific reference frames, will show maximum efficiency on a specific type of transformation related to their expertise (i.e. effector-based transformations for dancers).

We tested whether effector-based transformations require the abilities of spatial orientation, spatial visualization, or kinesthetic imagery in about 100 young adults (University of Utah psychology students). Existing research using 2D images of bodies has shown that object-based transformations are recruited when deciding whether two bodies are the same or different (same-different task) and that perspective transformations are recruited when deciding whether an outstretched limb is a left or right arm (left-right task) (Zacks, Mires, Tversky, & Hazeltine, 2002). Effector-based transformations have been previously studied using a left-right task and a same-different task with 2D images of hand stimuli with mixed results as to whether effector-based transformations require separate mechanisms (Kosslyn, Digirolamo, Thompson, & Alpert, 1998; Parsons, 1987; Wraga, Thompson, Alpert, & Kosslyn, 2003). In our study, participants completed psychometric tests tapping the three spatial ability factors as well as desktop computer-based spatial transformation tasks that measure reaction time and accuracy. Spatial orientation ability is being measured with the Perspective Taking/Spatial Orientation Test and Money's Road-Map Test of Direction Sense. In the Perspective Taking/Spatial Orientation Test participants are shown a 2D drawing of seven objects. They are asked to imagine themselves standing at one of the objects while facing another object and then tasked to indicate the location of a third object relative to the imagined position. The Money's Road-Map Test of Direction Sense requires the participant to view a map with an elaborate path drawn and then indicate right or left turns along the path from a pedestrian's perspective. Spatial visualization ability is being measured with the Paper Folding Test and the Cube Comparison Test. In the Paper Folding Test, participants are presented with a series of drawings of a folded square sheet of paper where the last drawing shows a hole punched through the entirety of the sheet. Participants have to choose one from five options of what the punched sheet would look like when completely opened. In the Cube Comparison Test, the participant has to decide whether two cubes are the same or different based on the assumption that no two faces are alike. Kinesthetic imagery ability is being measured with the Movement Imagery Questionnaire Revised Second Version and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire. The Movement Imagery Questionnaire Revised Second Version is a questionnaire that evaluates two ways of imaging performing movement – visual and kinesthetic. The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire is a questionnaire that assesses the vividness of a participant's ability to visually imagine movement from a first person perspective and a third person perspective as well as the ability to kinesthetically imagine movement.

The computer-based transformation tasks are based on paradigms traditionally used to test the different transformations. The stimuli will consist of hands, feet, and whole bodies rotated in the picture plane or the axial. Object-based transformations are typically evaluated using same-different judgments such as in Shepard and Metzler's mental rotation paradigm. Perspective transformations are typically evaluated using left-right judgments such as in mental body rotation tasks (MBRT) where participants have to make a viewer based judgment given a perspective rotation. Effector-based transformations are typically evaluated using left-right judgments such as in mental body part rotation tasks where participants have to make a body specific judgment given a body part rotation. Within these paradigms, biological objects, as opposed to objects, letters or abstract figures, have been used successfully to elicit the use of a specific type of transformation. To examine whether these tasks are tapping three separate processes or two separate processes, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will be performed to test the hypothesized factor structures as well as test alternative models.

We also evaluated dancers to further test the relationship among the three types of spatial transformations. Dancers are likely spatial experts in effector-based transformations based on their training and practice in Laban's spatial awareness (Laban, 1950; Leman & Naveda, 2010). Dancers who are presently practicing and had more than ten years of training were used to assess the extent to which processes are shared among the transformations or if different processes are utilized by experts. Their performance was evaluated on the same computer tasks and pencil-and-paper tests of spatial ability described above.

More broadly, examining individual differences in spatial abilities is important for understanding and facilitating spatial thinking across different domains. We will present our findings from our large sample of students and smaller sample of spatial experts, as well as a discussion of the implications to understanding spatial thinking in the geosciences and other STEM disciplines.

References
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities : a survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chase, W., & Simon, H. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81.
De Groot, A. D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess (Second ed.): Amsterdam University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363.
Garg, A. X., Norman, G., & Sperotable, L. (2001). How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet, 357(9253), 363-364.
Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. (2009). How spatial abilities enhance, and are enhanced by, dental education. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 61-70.
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32(2), 175-191.
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking (pp. 121-169). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jola, C., & Mast, F. W. (2005). Mental Object Rotation and Egocentric Body Transformation: Two Dissociable Processes? Spatial Cognition & Computation, 5(2), 217-237.
Kosslyn, S. M., Digirolamo, G. J., Thompson, W. L., & Alpert, N. M. (1998). Mental rotation of objects versus hands: Neural mechanisms revealed by positron emission tomography. Psychophysiology, 35(2), 151-161.
Laban, R. (1950). Mastery of Movement on the Stage. London: MacDonald & Evans.
Leman, M., & Naveda, L. (2010). Basic gestures as spatiotemporal reference frames for repetitive dance/music patterns in Samba and Charleston. Music Perception, 28(1), 71-91.
Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial Ability: A Review and Reanalysis of the Correlational Literature Aptitude Research Project. Palo Alto, CA: School of Education, Stanford University.
Obler, L. K., & Fein, D. E. (1988). The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and special abilities: Guilford Press.
Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 178-241.
Poltrock, S., & Brown, P. (1984). Individual Differences in Visual Imagery and Spatial Ability. Intelligence, 8(2), 93-138.
Wraga, M., Thompson, W. L., Alpert, N. M., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2003). Implicit transfer of motor strategies in mental rotation. Brain and Cognition, 52(2), 135-143.
Zacks, J. M., Mires, J., Tversky, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2002). Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2(4), 315-332.

AAPG Search and Discovery Article #120140© 2014 AAPG Hedberg Conference 3D Structural Geologic Interpretation: Earth, Mind and Machine, June 23-27, 2013, Reno, Nevada