Video game and mental rotation training improve spatial anatomy task scores (725.5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High scores in measures of mental rotation have been associated with improved spatial anatomy performance. Mental rotation training, such as video games as well as paper‐and‐pencil mental rotation tasks, has been shown to improve mental rotation scores. The purpose of the study is to determine whether video game or paper‐and‐pencil mental rotation training can improve spatial anatomy ability. Participants in the study (n=13), either medical or dental students, were asked to complete the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) and the Spatial Anatomy Task (SAT) to provide a baseline measure of their spatial ability and spatial anatomy knowledge, respectively. Based on MRT scores, participants were assigned to one of three groups: one that played 5 cumulative hours of the video game Tetris (n=3), another that completed the MRT daily over the span of a 5 days (n=4), and a control group that received no training (n=5). All participants were again asked to complete the MRT and SAT after training. Paired t‐tests were used to compare baseline and final test scores in each group. Preliminary results show that both the MRT group (p = 0.046) and the Tetris group (p = 0.014) significantly improved their total SAT scores, while the control group (p = 0.129) did not. Although more research is necessary to make definitive conclusions, the current study indicates that mental rotation training may be of benefit for students learning spatial anatomy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".