Knowing Your Limits: How a Time Constraint May Impact Spatial Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to evaluate how spatial ability (SA) relates to temporal and spatial patterns in average fixation duration (AFD). We hypothesized that SA would be negatively correlated with AFD. Additionally, we asserted that SA would be positively related to AFD in the spatially salient regions of interest (ROIs) of structures presented on a spatial test. The SA test was timed and based on the line drawings of Shepherd and Metzler. Individuals chose whether block pairs were rotations (same), or mirrored (different) images. Eye tracking revealed a significant relationship between AFD and SA (r = ‐.92*, n=10, p<.0001) . This suggests that high SA individuals are able to discern and attend to the spatially salient features required to interpret spatial structures more rapidly than low scorers. Through the creation of spatial ROIs, the relationship between SA and AFD in different areas of the images (Bend, Tail, Straight or Empty) was revealed. When the proportional AFD was related to SA, two relationships were found; a negative relationship between the Tail AFD and SA (r=‐.65*, n=10, p=.042), and a positive relationship between the Straight AFD and SA (r=.66*, n=10, p=.037). Thus, low SA individuals dwell on the tail regions, using tail position to solve the question, while the high SA individuals quickly observe the tails, and store the information in their working memory for reference, as they proceed through the test.
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 | 0.001 | 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".