Training Generalized Spatial Transformation Skills Giorgio Ganis Harvard University Stephen M. Kosslyn Harvard University Nora S. Newcombe Temple University William L. Thompson Harvard University Rebecca Wright Oxford University

 Background  Methods  Results  Summary & Conclusions

 Background  Methods  Results  Summary & Conclusions

 Key in domains such as mathematics, natural sciences and engineering  Play a role in reasoning and communication Why study spatial skills?

 Meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Baenninger & Newcombe, 1989)  Nature of improvement remains unclear, due to methodological/experimental limitations: Transfer to novel stimuli ? Transfer to other spatial tasks ? What processes are affected ?  New study on spatial transformation skill improvement with practice Can spatial skills be improved through practice?

Can practice on a spatial transformation task transfer to other spatial transformation tasks? QUESTION

 Task component analysis  Mental Rotation Initial encoding Rotate one object Compare objects to make decision Response Paradigms to study spatial skill training

 Gains should be tested with new stimuli Rule out instance-based improvement (memory for specific items) Need large sets of stimuli Paradigms to study spatial skill training

 Symmetric assessment of transfer between spatial tasks Group 1: Trained on Task A and tested on Task B Group 2: Trained on Task B and tested on Task A Paradigms to study spatial skill training

 Inclusion of a non-spatial control task Rule out generic transfer effects Paradigms to study spatial skill training

 Intensive training to produce large gains Paradigms to study spatial skill training

 Background  Methods  Results  Summary & Conclusions

Participants 31 participants (17 females, 14 males)

Mental Rotation Task (MRT) Adapted from Shepard & Metzler (1971) 48 Spatial Transformation Difficulty

SAME Mental Rotation Task (MRT) DIFFERENT

Mental Paper Folding Task (MPFT) Adapted from Shepard & Feng (1972) Spatial Transformation Difficulty

SAME DIFFERENT Mental Paper Folding Task (MPFT)

Verbal Analogies Task (VAT) Adapted from Morrison et al. (2004)

SAME Verbal Analogies Task (VAT) DIFFERENT

Design Day 1 Day 2-22 Day 23 MRT (N=31) MPFT (N=31) VAT (N=31) Initial Session Practice Phase MRT (N=17) MPFT (N=14) Final Session MRT (N=31) MPFT (N=31) VAT (N=31)

Initial encoding Transform one object Compare objects to make decision Response Task component analysis y = a + bx angle RT  Transfer: spatial transformation processes (in addition to other spatial processes) shared by the twospatial tasks but not by the control task

 Background  Methods  Results  Summary & Conclusions

Mean Error Rate Practice Session Results Mean Response Time angle RT

Results

Mean Error Rate Practice Session 10 20Results Mean Response Time

Results

Results General Factors? Transfer does not significantly affect slopes

Results

Results

 Background  Methods  Results  Summary & Conclusions

Summary & Conclusions Symmetric transfer of practice between spatial transformation tasks Improvement beyond general factors Can practice on a spatial transformation task transfer to other spatial transformation tasks?YES

Remaining questions  Why didn’t many previous studies find transfer to other spatial tasks? Task similarity? Practice duration and regime? Other methodological differences? Need for more data and systematic meta-analyses

Remaining questions  Why did reliable transfer occur only on intercepts but not on slopes?  Power issues ?  Improvement may occur in the initial spatial encoding of the stimulus  The slope/intercept decomposition of these classic tasks may need to be revised

Thank you!

Design

Design Day 1 Day 2-22 Day 23 Initial Session MPFT (N=31) MRT (N=31) Practice Phase Final Session MPFT (N=31) MRT (N=31) MRT (N=17) MRT (N=17) … MPFT (N=14) MPFT (N=14) … MPFT (N=31) MRT (N=31) MPFT (N=31) MRT (N=31)