Skip to main content
Log in

What is improved if a mental rotation task is repeated – the efficiency of memory access, or the speed of a transformation routine?

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study contrasts 3 theories which provide explanations for performance improvement in mental rotation tasks. Wallace and Hofelich conjectured that the process as such may be executed more rapidly after training, while Bethell-Fox and Shepard attributed practice effects to the fact that images may be transformed first elementwise, but later as a Gestalt. In contrast, Tarr and Pinker assumed that a transformation of an image will no longer be computed after training but simply be retrieved from memory. Thirty-seven subjects participated in 3 test sessions in which they had to decide on the parity of 3-D block figures presented from different perspectives. Experimental group subjects underwent 4 additional practice sessions in which a subset of the figures and a subset of perspective views were used. Tests adapted to the predictions of the 3 theories revealed specific learning effects but no transfer, neither to old objects presented in new perspectives nor to new objects. This supports an instance-based explanation of practice effects which states that objects are represented in multiple perspective views.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 7 May 1997 / Accepted: 6 August 1997

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heil, M., Rösler, F., Link, M. et al. What is improved if a mental rotation task is repeated – the efficiency of memory access, or the speed of a transformation routine?. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung 61, 99–106 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050016

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050016

Keywords

Navigation