Item type, occlusion, and gender differences in mental rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to examine the role of item type in mental rotation. In each experiment, participants completed two computerized mental rotation tasks, one with blocks as stimuli and one with human figures as stimuli. The tasks were formatted either as a multiple-choice psychometric test (Experiment 1) or as a same-different type task (Experiment 2). Aside from the expected replication of a decreased effect of occlusion on women's accuracy when processing human figures compared to block figures, it was hypothesized that response times would increase when processing the complex but familiar human figures, compared to the simple but unfamiliar block figures. In Experiment 1, the results relevant to occlusion were replicated. However, the presence of a speed-accuracy trade-off suggested that participants processed human figures faster but less accurately than block figures. In Experiment 2, both men and women performed faster and more accurately when processing occluded human figures than when processing nonoccluded human figures. The effect of item type, its potential link to embodied cognition, and the role of strategy selection on gender differences in mental rotation are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".