Cognitive Processing

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 143–152 | Cite as

Breaking new ground in the mind: an initial study of mental brittle transformation and mental rigid rotation in science experts

Research Report

Abstract

The current study examines the spatial skills employed in different spatial reasoning tasks, by asking how science experts who are practiced in different types of visualizations perform on different spatial tasks. Specifically, the current study examines the varieties of mental transformations. We hypothesize that there may be two broad classes of mental transformations: rigid body mental transformations and non-rigid mental transformations. We focus on the disciplines of geology and organic chemistry because different types of transformations are central to the two disciplines: While geologists and organic chemists may both confront rotation in the practice of their profession, only geologists confront brittle transformations. A new instrument was developed to measure mental brittle transformation (visualizing breaking). Geologists and organic chemists performed similarly on a measure of mental rotation, while geologists outperformed organic chemists on the mental brittle transformation test. The differential pattern of skill on the two tests for the two groups of experts suggests that mental brittle transformation and mental rotation are different spatial skills. The roles of domain general cognitive resources (attentional control, spatial working memory, and perceptual filling in) and strategy in completing mental brittle transformation are discussed. The current study illustrates how ecological and interdisciplinary approaches complement traditional cognitive science to offer a comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of spatial thinking.

Keywords

Mental brittle transformation Mental rotation Ecological approach STEM Expertize Rigid body Non-rigid 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a grant to the Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center, funded by the National Science Foundation (grant numbers SBE-0541957 and SBE-1041707), and by a Fostering Interdisciplinary Research on Education grant, funded by the National Science Foundation (grant number DRL-1138619). The authors wish to thank Chris Shilling for help constructing the stimuli; Carol Ormand, Cathy Manduca, and Basil Tikoff for their insights into reasoning about deformations in geology; and all the experts who volunteered their time to participate in this research.

References

  1. Atit, Shipley, Tikoff (2013) Twisting space: are rigid and non-rigid mental transformations separate spatial skills? Cogn Process Spat Learn Reason ProcessGoogle Scholar
  2. Carroll J (1993) Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chase WG, Simon HA (1973) Perception in Chess. Cogn Psychol 4:55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chatterjee A (2008) The neural organization of spatial thought and language. Semin Speech Lang 29:226–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Ekstrom RB, French JW, Harman H, Derman D (1976) Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliot JC, Smith IM (1983) An international directory of spatial tests. NFER-Nelson, Windsor, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  8. Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data, rev edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericsson KA, Smith J (1991) Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: an introduction. In: Ericsson KA, Smith J (eds) Toward a general theory of expertise: prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–39Google Scholar
  10. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson EJ, Spelke ES (1983) The development of perception. In: Mussen P, Flavell JH, Markman E (eds) Handbook of child psychology, vol 3. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson EJ, Walker AS (1984) Development of knowledge of visual-tactual affordances of substances. Child Dev 55:453–460Google Scholar
  13. Gibson EJ, Owsley CJ, Johnston J (1978) Perception of invariants by five-month-old infants: differentiation of two types of motion. Dev Psychol 14(4):407–415Google Scholar
  14. Harris J, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe N (2013) Understanding spatial transformations: similarities and differences between mental rotation and mental folding. Cogn Process Spat Learn Reason ProcessGoogle Scholar
  15. Hegarty M, Waller D (2004) A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence 32:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hegarty M, Waller DA (2005) Individual differences in spatial abilities. In: Shah P, Miyake A (eds) The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp 121–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty M, Crookes R, Dara-Abrams D, Shipley TF (2010) Do all science disciplines rely on spatial abilities? Preliminary evidence from self-report questionnaires. In: Hoelscher C, Shipley TF, Bateman J, Olivetti M, Newcombe N (eds) Spatial cognition VII. Springer, Berlin, pp 85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchins E (1996) Cognition in the wild. A Bradford Book. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones MG, Taylor A (2009) Developing a sense of scale: looking backward. J Res Sci Teach 46(4):460–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kellman PJ, Shipley TF (1991) A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cogn Psychol 23:141–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kozhevnikov M, Hegarty M, Mayer RE (2002) Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of visualizers. Cogn Instr 20:47–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kucera H, Francis WN (1967) Computational analysis of present-day American english. Brown University press, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  23. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56(6):1479–1498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lohman DF (1979) Spatial ability: a review and reanalysis of the correlational literature (Technical Report No. 8). School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Lohman DF (1988) Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In: Stermberg RJ (ed) Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol 4. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 181–248Google Scholar
  26. Malvern LE (1969) Introduction to the mechanics of a continuous medium. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. Markman A, Gentner D (1993) Splitting the differences: a structural alignment view of similarity. J Mem Lang 32:517–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGee MG (1979) Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychol Bull 86:899–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newcombe N, Shipley TF (2012) Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assessments. In: Gero JS (ed) Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1956) The child’s conception of space. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Scolari M, Vogel EK, Awh E (2008) Perceptual expertise enhances the resolution but not the number of representations in working memory. Psychon Bull Rev 15(1):215–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shea DL, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2001) Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: a 20-year longitudinal study. J Educ Psychol 93(3):604–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepard RN (1988) The role of transformations in spatial cognition. In: Stiles-Davis J, Kritchevsky M, Bellugi U (eds) Spatial cognition: brain bases and development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  34. Shepard RN, Metzler J (1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171:701–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shipley TF, Zacks J (2008) Understanding events: from perception to action. Oxford University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sims VK, Mayer RE (2002) Domain specificity of spatial expertise: the case of video game players. Appl Cogn Psychol 16:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snodgrass JG, Feenan K (1990) Printing effects in picture fragment completion: support for the perceptual closure hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Gen 119:276–296Google Scholar
  38. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M (1980) A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn 6(2):174–215Google Scholar
  39. Spelke ES (1982) Perceptual knowledge of objects in infancy. In: Mehler J, Garrett M, Walker E (eds) Perspectives on mental representation. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  40. Stieff M (2007) Mental rotation and diagrammatic reasoning in science. Learn Instru 17(2):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stieff M, Raje S (2008) Expertise and spatial reasoning in advanced scientific problem solving. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference of the learning sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 366–373Google Scholar
  42. Thurstone LL (1950) Some primary abilities in visual thinking (Rep. no. 59). Psychometric Laboratory, University of Chicago, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  43. Todd J (1982) Visual information about rigid and nonrigid motion: a geometric analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 8(2):238–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC, Engle RW (2005) An automated version of the operation span task. Behav Res Methods 37:498–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uttal D, Cohen C (2012) Spatial thinking and STEM education: when, why, and how? Psychol Learn Motiv 57:147–181Google Scholar
  46. Uttal D, Meadow N, Tipton E, Hand L, Alden A, Warren C, Newcombe N (in press) The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychol BullGoogle Scholar
  47. Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47:599–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2009) Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J Educ Psychol 101(4):817–835. doi:10.1037/a0016127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Waters AJ, Gobet F (2008) Mental imagery and chunks: empirical and computational findings. Mem Cogn 36:506–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zacks J, Hazeltine E, Tversky B, Gabrieli JDE (1999) Event-related fMRI of mental spatial transformations. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the cognitive neuroscience society. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations