Spatial Abilities and Effect of Working Memory on Drawings of Objects from Haptic Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective As a basis for an application in anatomy education, vision‐based spatial abilities tests have been correlated with drawings of objects from haptic perception. Decreasing haptic perception while increasing working memory has been found to decrease performance on drawings of objects from haptic perception. The objective of the current study was to correlate spatial abilities to the effect of working memory on drawings of objects from haptic perception. Methods A cohort of 24 medical graduates was enrolled in a prospective study. Ethics committee approval and written informed concent were obtained. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Tests in two (MRTA) and three (MRTC) dimensions and a Surface Development Test (SDT). Experiment was done within a one‐month rotation preparing for residency. Eighteen objects constructed from 10 cubes glued together, similar to Shepard and Metzler's objects, were drawn by participants from haptic perception. Drawings were scored by one judge. Time performance was defined as the time to perform all drawings/number of correct drawing. The first and second exercise were done before and within a one‐week drawing course, respectively. In the first exercise, object could be touched by participants for up to seven minutes while drawing the object. In the second exercise, 30 seconds were allowed for haptic perception of the object, 15 seconds to memorize, and up to 375 seconds to draw the object without any further haptic access to the object. The maximum score was 24 for each of MRTA and MRTC, 60 for SDT, 18 for the drawing score, and 420 seconds for time performance. Descriptive statistics included median and lower and upper quartiles. Spearman's correlation coefficient (and associated p‐value) was used to correlate the change in drawing score and time performance to MRTA, MRTC and SDT scores. Results Correlations of change in drawing score between the first and second exercice [5 (4, 8.5)] with MRTA [10.5 (7.5, 14)], MRTC [8.0 (5, 10.5)] and SDT [44 (36, 46.5)] scores were − 0.371 (p = 0.0747), −0.454 (p = 0.0257) and −0.556 (p = 0.0048), respectively. Similarly, correlations of change in time performance between the first and second exercice [106 (27, 321) seconds] with MRTA, MRTC and SDT scores were −0.288 (p = 0.1716), −0.426 (p < 0.0378) and −0.439 (p = 0.0318), respectively. Conclusion Spatial abilities tests were correlated to the effect of working memory on drawings of objects from haptic perception. These findings imply a possible neural pathway between spatial abilities in the parietal lobe and working memory in the central executive lateral prefrontal cortex of brain. Support or Funding Information This study was supported by an internal grant from the Department of Surgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
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".