Sex Differences in Spatial Cognition Extend Beyond Vision: Insights From the Audio‐Corsi Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades, substantial evidence has accumulated demonstrating sex differences in spatial abilities. Males outperform females in most visual tasks that require processing visuospatial information. Notably, in real-world contexts, this capacity also involves other sensory modalities, such as the auditory system. However, unlike visuospatial abilities, research on sex differences in auditory spatial abilities remains sparse. The present study investigated sex differences in an auditory spatial working memory task. Seventy-seven participants (41 female) completed the Audio-Corsi task, the well-established visual Mental Rotation Test (MRT), and a cognitive strategy questionnaire. Results revealed that males outperformed females on both the Audio-Corsi and the MRT. Interestingly, a significant relationship between performance on the Audio-Corsi and the MRT emerged, but only among females. Furthermore, to complete the Audio-Corsi, males reported employing the use of a holistic cognitive strategy more than females. These findings demonstrate that sex differences in spatial abilities extend across sensory modalities, encompassing both auditory and visual domains. They also underscore the distinct cognitive strategies employed by males and females in spatial processing. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of sex differences in spatial cognition.
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".