Shared processes in spatial rotation and music permutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment was conducted in which subjects performed a three-dimensional spatial rota-tion test (24 trials) and a new test involving judgments of musical permutations (64 trials). Two types of musical permutations were used, including retrograde and inverse. In a retrograde permutation, the criterion melody was played backward in the test melody, and in an inverse permutation, an ascending or descending interval in the criterion melody became an opposite in the test melody. Subjects included 32 male and 64 female undergraduates at the University of Toronto. Regression analysis clearly showed that it was easiest to compare short retrograde permutations and that accuracy at discerning retrograde permutations predicted accuracy at judging spatial rotations. The implication is that a higher order ability to discriminate contour underlies both kinds of judgments. ª 2001 Academic Press Key Words: musical ability; spatial ability; sex differences; estrogen. General definitions of mental rotation ability refer to it as the act of imagining an object or pattern turning from one angular orientation to another (Corballis & McClaren, 1982; Linn & Peterson, 1985). In the original experiment on mental rota-tion (Shepard & Metzler, 1971), the task was to determine whether two-dimensional
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".