Photographs of real human figures: Item types and persistent sex differences in mental rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the current study was to provide a better understanding of the role of image familiarity, embodied cognition, and cognitive strategies on sex differences in performance when rotating blocks and photographs of real human bodies. Two new Mental Rotation Tests (MRTs) were created: one using photographs of real human models positioned as closely as possible to computer drawn figures from the human figures MRT used in Doyle and Voyer's 2013 study, and one using analogous block figures. It was hypothesised that, when compared to the analogous block figures, the real human figures would lead to improved accuracy among both men and women, a reduced magnitude of sex differences in accuracy, and a reduced effect of occlusion on women's performance when compared to analogous block figures. The three-way interaction between test, sex, and occlusion reported in Doyle and Voyer's 2013 study was not replicated in the current study. However, women's scores on the real human figures improved significantly more than men's scores on the real human figures test compared to gender differences in improvement on the block figures test. This finding points to a greater strategy shift among women than men when rotating human figures.
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".