MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022931267 · doi:10.1076/jcen.24.1.18.969

Discrepancy Between Mental Rotation and Perspective-Taking Abilities in Normal Aging Assessed by Piaget's Three-Mountain Task

2002· article· en· W2022931267 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpatial Cognition and Navigation
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental rotationPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Task (project management)Developmental psychologyMental ageAge groupsCognitionSpatial abilityCognitive psychologyPsychiatryGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a cross-sectional study, we examined age-related differences in visuo-spatial ability associated with image rotation, using two variants of Piaget's 'Three-Mountain Task.' The object-mental rotation (OMR) task detects the ability to mentally rotate an image, whereas the subject-mental rotation (SMR) task reveals the ability to mentally change one's perspective. A group of 33 young adults, 26 middle-aged adults, and 31 elderly normal adults were studied. Both tasks revealed age-related differences in performance but a larger difference between middle-aged and elderly group was observed for SMR than OMR performance. Age-related increases in the 'egocentric' type of error were found only on the SMR task. The results suggest that the ability to mentally change one's perspective declines with age, perhaps more than the ability to mentally rotate objects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it