Alvin E. Roth – Harvard University Axel Ockenfels – Harvard University & University of Magdegurg
Training Generalized Spatial Transformation Skills Giorgio Ganis Harvard University Stephen M....
-
date post
22-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Training Generalized Spatial Transformation Skills Giorgio Ganis Harvard University Stephen M....
Training Generalized Spatial Transformation Skills
Giorgio GanisHarvard University
Stephen M. Kosslyn Harvard University
Nora S. Newcombe Temple University
William L. Thompson Harvard University
Rebecca Wright Oxford University
BackgroundBackground
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions
BackgroundBackground
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions
Key in domains such as mathematics, natural sciences and engineering
Play a role in reasoning and communication
Why study spatial skills?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 spatial skills be improved through practice?
Can practice on a spatial transformation task
transfer to other spatial transformation tasks?
QUESTIONQUESTION
Task component analysis
Mental Rotation
• Initial encoding
• Rotate one object
• Compare objects to make decision
• Response
Paradigms to study spatial skill trainingParadigms 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 trainingParadigms 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 trainingParadigms to study spatial skill training
Inclusion of a non-spatial control task
• Rule out generic transfer effects
Paradigms to study spatial skill trainingParadigms to study spatial skill training
Intensive training to produce large gains
Paradigms to study spatial skill trainingParadigms to study spatial skill training
BackgroundBackground
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions
ParticipantsParticipants
31 participants (17 females, 14 males)
Mental Rotation Task (MRT)Mental Rotation Task (MRT)
Adapted from Shepard & Metzler (1971)
48
Spatial Transformation Difficulty
SAME
Mental Rotation Task (MRT)Mental Rotation Task (MRT)
DIFFERENT
Mental Paper Folding TaskMental Paper Folding Task (MPFT)(MPFT)
Adapted from Shepard & Feng (1972) S
patial T
ransformation D
ifficulty
SAME
DIFFERENT
Mental Paper Folding TaskMental Paper Folding Task (MPFT)(MPFT)
Verbal Analogies Task (VAT)Verbal Analogies Task (VAT)
Adapted from Morrison et al. (2004)
SAME
Verbal Analogies TaskVerbal Analogies Task (VAT)(VAT)
DIFFERENT
DesignDesign
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 analysisTask component analysis
y = a + bx
angle
RT
Transfer: spatial transformation processes(in addition to other spatial processes) shared by the
two spatial tasks but not by the control task
BackgroundBackground
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions
Mea
n E
rro
r R
ate
Practice Session
10 20
ResultsResults
1000
2000
3000
Mea
n R
esp
on
se T
ime
6
12
18
angle
RT
ResultsResults
RT Slope
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Practice Session
Mean RT Slope
RT Intercept
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Practice Session
Mean RT Intercept
Mea
n E
rror
Rat
e
Practice Session
10 20
ResultsResults
1000
2000
3000
Mea
n R
espo
nse
Tim
e
4
8
12
ResultsResults
RT Slope
0100200300400500600700800900
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Practice Session
Mean RT Slope
RT Intercept
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Practice Session
Mean RT
ResultsResults
General Factors?General Factors?
• Transfer does not significantly affect slopes
ResultsResults
ResultsResults
BackgroundBackground
MethodsMethods
ResultsResults
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & Conclusions
Summary & ConclusionsSummary & 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?
YESYES
Remaining questionsRemaining 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 questionsRemaining 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!Thank you!
DesignDesign
DesignDesign
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)