Spatial Primitives from a Cognitive Perspective: Sensitivity to Changes in Various Geometric Properties

  • Toru Ishikawa
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8116)

Abstract

This study addressed the issue of spatial concepts by examining the perception of changes in shape, orientation, size, and cyclic order caused by the transformations of deformation, rotation, scaling, and reflection. 49 participants viewed 36 geometric configurations to which different types and degrees of transformations were applied, and answered how much they thought the configurations were different from each other. Participants perceived deformed configurations as more dissimilar as the degree of deformation became larger. Participants’ perception of geometric properties, however, did not conform to the mathematical classification of transformations. They discriminated between deformed, rotated, scaled, and reflected configurations when the degree of deformation was small; but the perceived difference became smaller as the degree of deformation became larger. Furthermore, mental-rotation ability affected the sensitivity to geometric properties, with low-spatial people attending to changes in orientation caused by rotation and reflection. Implications for spatial learning and education are discussed.

Keywords

Spatial thinking Spatial concepts Geometric transformations Spatial ability Bidimensional regression 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Casey, M.B., Nuttall, R.L., Pezaris, E.: Mediators of gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores: A comparison of spatial skills with internalized beliefs and anxieties. Developmental Psychology 33, 669–680 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H., Dermen, D.: Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Service, Princeton (1976)Google Scholar
  3. Gans, D.: Transformations and Geometries. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (1969)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Gersmehl, P.J., Gersmehl, C.A.: Spatial thinking by young children: Neurologic evidence for early development and “educability”. Journal of Geography 106, 181–191 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gescheider, G.A.: Psychophysics: The Fundamentals, 3rd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Girden, E.R.: ANOVA: Repeated Measures (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07–084). Sage, Newbury Park (1992)Google Scholar
  7. Golledge, R.G.: Do people understand spatial concepts: The case of first-order primitives. In: Frank, A.U., Formentini, U., Campari, I. (eds.) GIS 1992. LNCS, vol. 639, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golledge, R.G.: The nature of geographic knowledge. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92, 1–14 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Golledge, R.G., Marsh, M., Battersby, S.: A conceptual framework for facilitating geospatial thinking. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98, 285–308 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodchild, M.F.: The fourth R? Rethinking GIS education. Arc News 28(3), 11 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. Hegarty, M.: Components of spatial intelligence. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 52, 265–297 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegarty, M., Montello, D.R., Richardson, A.E., Ishikawa, T., Lovelace, K.: Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence 34, 151–176 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hegarty, M., Richardson, A.E., Montello, D.R., Lovelace, K., Subbiah, I.: Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30, 425–447 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishikawa, T.: Geospatial thinking and spatial ability: An empirical examination of knowledge and reasoning in geographical science. The Professional Geographer (2012) (in press; first published online), doi:10.1080/00330124.2012.724350Google Scholar
  15. Ishikawa, T., Kastens, K.A.: Why some students have trouble with maps and other spatial representations. Journal of Geoscience Education 53, 184–197 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. Janelle, D.G., Goodchild, M.F.: Location across disciplines: Reflection on the CSISS experience. In: Scholten, H.J., Velde, R., Manen, N. (eds.) Geospatial Technology and the Role of Location in Science, pp. 15–29. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keehner, M.M., Tendick, F., Meng, M.V., Anwar, H.P., Hegarty, M., Stoller, M.L., Duh, Q.: Spatial ability, experience, and skill in laparoscopic surgery. American Journal of Surgery 188, 71–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kidder, F.R.: Elementary and middle school children’s comprehension of Euclidean transformations. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 7, 40–52 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klippel, A., Weaver, C., Robinson, A.: Analyzing cognitive conceptualizations using interactive visual environments. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 38, 52–68 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M., Hegarty, M.: Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Science 31, 549–579 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kruskal, J.B.: Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29, 1–27 (1964)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, W.: Core concepts of spatial information for transdisciplinary research. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26, 2267–2276 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, J., Bednarz, R.: Components of spatial thinking: Evidence from a spatial thinking ability test. Journal of Geography 111, 15–26 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levinson, S.C.: Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M., Nadel, L., Garrett, M. (eds.) Language and Space, pp. 109–169. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  25. Liben, L.S., Downs, R.M.: Understanding person-space-map relations: Cartographic and developmental perspectives. Developmental Psychology 29, 739–752 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mandler, J.M.: Representation. In: Mussen, P.H. (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, 4th edn., pp. 420–494. Wiley, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  27. Mandler, J.M.: On the spatial foundations of the conceptual system and its enrichment. Cognitive Science 36, 421–451 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manduca, C., Mogk, D., Stillings, N.: Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences. Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College (2003)Google Scholar
  29. Martin, J.L.: A test with selected topological properties of Piaget’s hypothesis concerning the spatial representation of the young child. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 7, 26–38 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council: Learning to Think Spatially. National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  31. Newcombe, N.S.: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator 34(2), 29–43 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. Piaget, J., Inhelder, B.: The Child’s Conception of Space (trans. Langdon, F.J., Lunzer, J.L.). Norton, New York (1967; original work published 1948)Google Scholar
  33. Siegel, A.W., White, S.H.: The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 10, 9–55 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uttal, D.H., Cohen, C.A.: Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation 57, 147–181 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toru Ishikawa
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies & Center for Spatial Information ScienceUniversity of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations