Working memory, map learning, and spatial orientation: The effects of gender and encoding interference on the acquisition of survey knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present experiment investigated the effects of gender and encoding interference on the retrieval of spatial knowledge in a group of 24 male and 29 female students aged 18 to 43 (M = 23.33; SD = 5.78), with 12 to 20 years of education (M = 14.33; SD = 1.76). Each participant was tested individually on their ability to study a map containing 14 labelled landmarks in 1 of 3 interference conditions (i.e., no interference, articulatory suppression, and spatial interference). Then, the participant was blindfolded and asked to point to different aspects of the environment, varying in degrees of familiarity. Specifically, they were asked to indicate the orientation of 4 familiar cardinal directions (over-learned), 4 obscure cardinal directions (intermediate), and 10 landmarks (novel); the latter were cued verbally or visually. Response latency and accuracy were measured. Mixed ANOVAs were conducted with gender (2) and interference (3) as between-subjects factors and cue modality (2) or level of exposure (3) to the environment as within-subjects factors. The results revealed a marked decrease in orientation error and response latency with increasing degrees of familiarity (exposure). In addition, landmarks cued verbally yielded faster and more accurate responses than landmarks cued visually. Also, the presence of any encoding interference during the map study phase resulted in lower accuracy (higher error), especially in the recall of novel information. Lastly, verbal interference affected the accuracy of females to orient to landmarks more than males and the spatial interference yielded the opposite pattern. The findings are discussed in terms of models of working memory, spatial cognition, and gender differences.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2005 .M37. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 44-03, page: 1521. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2005.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".