Advertisement

International Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams

Diagrams 2014: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference pp 138-145 | Cite as

Alternative Strategies in Processing 3D Objects Diagrams: Static, Animated and Interactive Presentation of a Mental Rotation Test in an Eye Movements Cued Retrospective Study

  • Jean-Michel Boucheix
  • Madeline Chevret
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8578)

Abstract

Spatial abilities involved in reasoning with diagrams have been assessed using tests supposed to require mental rotation (cube figures of the Vandenberg & Kruse). However, Hegarty (2010) described alternative strategies: Mental rotation is not always used; analytical strategies can be used instead. In this study, we compared three groups of participants in three external formats of presentation of the referent figure in the Vandenberg & Kruse test: static, animated, interactive. During the test, participants were eye tracked. After the test, they were interrogated on their strategies for each item during the viewing of the replay of their own eye movement in a cued retrospective verbal protocol session. Results showed participants used varied strategies, part of them similar to those shown by Hegarty. Presentation format influenced significantly the strategy. Participants with high performance at the test used more mental rotation. Participants with lower performance tended to use more analytical strategies than mental rotation.

Keywords

Mental rotation Strategy Presentation formats Eye movements 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hegarty, M.: Components of spatial intelligence. In: Ross, B.H. (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivations, vol. 52, pp. 265–297. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hegarty, M., Waller, D.: A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence 32, 175–191 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vandenberg, S.G., Kruse, A.R.: Mental rotations, a group of three dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills 47, 599–604 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hegarty, M., De Leeuw, K., Bonura, B.: What do spatial ability test really measure. In: Proceedings of the 49th Meeting, Psychonomic Society, Chicago, IL (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B.: Alternative strategies for spatial reasoning with diagrams. In: Goel, A.K., Jamnik, M., Narayanan, N.H. (eds.) Diagrams 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6170, pp. 115–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Koshevnikov, M., Hegarty, M.: A dissociation between object manipulation and perspective taking spatial abilities. Memory & Cognition 29, 745–756 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C., Khooshabeh, P., Montello, D.: Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: What matters is what you see, nor whether you interact. Cognitive Science 32, 1099–1132 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-Michel Boucheix
    • 1
  • Madeline Chevret
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Burgundy, LEAD-CNRSDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations