Sex differences in curve tracing and the Mental Rotations Test.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to extend the work on the curve tracing task from Voyer and MacPherson (2020) in two experiments replacing the chronometric task they used with a psychometric mental rotation task. Both experiments also manipulated separation between the target and distractor curve to confirm that a zoom lens strategy is used in curve tracing and that this strategy preference is more common for men than women. Experiment 1 also aimed to replicate the correlation between curve tracing and Navon task performance, whereas Experiment 2 determined whether the correlation between curve tracing and mental rotation remained when the attention component was partialed out. In Experiment 1, 49 men and 67 women completed the curve tracing task, the Navon task, and the Mental Rotations Test (MRT). In Experiment 2, 69 men and 66 women completed the curve tracing task, the MRT, and the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Results in both experiments replicated the effect of distance between dots on the curve and the performance advantage for men in curve tracing. All tasks correlated significantly with each other at least on accuracy. Findings for the distractor curve manipulation replicated support for the use of a zoom lens strategy. However, findings for women and men produced contradictory findings. Finally, partialing out SART performance did not affect the correlation between curve tracing and MRT performance. The discussion emphasizes the common piecemeal processing component in curve tracing and mental rotation. More work is required to examine further potential sex differences in strategy use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".