This study examined whether the metacognitive system monitors the potential positive effects of gestures on spatial thinking. Participants (N = 59, 31F, Mage = 21.67) performed a mental rotation task, consisting of 24 problems varying in difficulty, and they evaluated their confidence in their answers to problems in either gesture or control conditions. The results revealed that performance and confidence were higher in the gesture condition, in which the participants were asked to use their gestures during problem-solving, compared with the control condition, extending the literature by evidencing gestures’ role in metacognition. Yet, the effect was only evident for females, who already performed worse than males, and when the problems were difficult. Encouraging gestures adversely affected performance and confidence in males. Such results suggest that gestures selectively influence cognition and metacognition and highlight the importance of task-related (i.e., difficulty) and individual-related variables (i.e., sex) in elucidating the links between gestures, confidence, and spatial thinking.
AlbanM. W.KelleyC. M. (2013). Embodiment meets metamemory: Weight as a cue for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032420
2.
AlemanA.BronkE.KesselsR. P. C.KoppeschaarH. P. F.van HonkJ. (2004). A single administration of testosterone improves visuospatial ability in young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(5), 612–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00089-1
3.
AlibaliM. W.BassokM.SolomonK. O.SycS. E.Goldin-MeadowS. (1999). Illuminating mental representations through speech and gesture. Psychological Science, 10(4), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00163
4.
AlibaliM. W.SpencerR. C.KnoxL.KitaS. (2011). Spontaneous gestures influence strategy choices in problem solving. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1138–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417722
AllenM.FrankD.SchwarzkopfD. S.FardoF.WinstonJ. S.HauserT. U.ReesG. (2016). Unexpected arousal modulates the influence of sensory noise on confidence. eLife, 5, Article e18103. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18103
7.
ArbuzovaP.MaurerL. K.FilevichE. (2022). Metacognitive domains are not aligned along a dimension of internal-external information source. BioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.03.490468
8.
ArielR.LembeckN. A.MoffatS.HertzogC. (2018). Are there sex differences in confidence and metacognitive monitoring accuracy for every day, academic, and psychometrically measured spatial ability?Intelligence, 70, 42–51.
9.
ArielR.MoffatS. D. (2018). Age-related similarities and differences in monitoring spatial cognition. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 25(3), 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2017.1305086
10.
BaenningerM.NewcombeN. (1995). Environmental input to the development of sex- related differences in spatial and mathematical ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 7(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(95)90007-1
BanduraA. (1971). Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In GlaserR. (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement (pp.228–278). Academic Press.
13.
BaranskiJ. V.PetrusicW. M. (1998). Probing the locus of confidence judgments: Experiments on the time to determine confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 929–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.929
14.
BarrettA. B.DienesZ.SethA. K. (2013). Measures of metacognition on signal-detection theoretic models. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033268
BenjaminA. S.BjorkR. A.SchwartzB. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.1.55
17.
BoldtA.De GardelleV.YeungN. (2017). The impact of evidence reliability on sensitivity and bias in decision confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(8), 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000404
18.
BoldtA.SchifferA. M.WaszakF.YeungN. (2019). Confidence predictions affect performance confidence and neural preparation in perceptual decision making. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40681-9
19.
BooneA. P.HegartyM. (2017). Sex differences in mental rotation tasks: Not just in the mental rotation process!. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1005–1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000370
20.
BroadersS. C.CookS. W.MitchellZ.Goldin-MeadowS. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.539
21.
BrooksN. B.BarnerD.FrankM.Goldin-MeadowS. (2018). The role of gesture in supporting mental representations: The case of mental abacus arithmetic. Cognitive Science, 42(2), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12527
22.
BrownV. A. (2021). An introduction to linear mixed-effects modeling in R. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), Article 60351. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920960351
23.
CartmillE. A.BeilockS.Goldin-MeadowS. (2012). A word in the hand: Action, gesture and mental representation in humans and non-human primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0162
ChongA.ChoiB.KwongE.ChanJ.ChongI.IpM.YengC.SoW. C. (2013). Producing gestures facilitates encoding of spatial relation. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 35, No. 35). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3mg475gn
26.
ChuM.KitaS. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the micro development of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013157
27.
ChuM.KitaS. (2011). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021790
28.
ChuM.KitaS. (2016). Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 257. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000168
29.
ChuM.MeyerA.FoulkesL.KitaS. (2014). Individual differences in frequency and saliency of speech-accompanying gestures: The role of cognitive abilities and empathy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 694–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033861
30.
ChurchR. B.Goldin-MeadowS. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(86)90053-3
31.
Cooke-SimpsonA.VoyerD. (2007). Confidence and gender differences on the mental rotation test. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.009
32.
DaiR.ThomasA. K.TaylorH. A. (2018). When to look at maps in navigation: Metacognitive control in environment learning. Cognitive Research, 3, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0130-7
33.
DesmeC. J.Alvarez-VargasD.PrudenS. M. (2019). Confidence mediates the sex differences observed in mental rotation tests. Development, 49, 344–351. https://www.researchgate.net
34.
DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (2014). Understanding people’s metacognitive judgments: An isomechanism framework and its implications for applied and theoretical research. In PerfectT.LindsayD. S. (Eds.), Handbook of applied memory (pp. 444–464). SAGE.
35.
EhrlichS. B.LevineS. C.Goldin-MeadowS. (2006). The importance of gesture in children’s spatial reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 42(6), 1259–1268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1259
36.
EieltsC.PouwW.OuwehandK.Van GogT.ZwaanR. A.PaasF. (2020). Co-thought gesturing supports more complex problem-solving in subjects with lower visual working-memory capacity. Psychological Research, 84(2), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1065-9
37.
EstesZ.FelkerS. (2012). Confidence mediates the sex difference in mental rotation performance. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9875-5
38.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
39.
Fernandez-DuqueD.BairdJ. A.PosnerM. I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2000.0447
40.
FlavellJ. H.RossL. (Eds.) (1981). Social cognitive development: Frontiers and possible futures. Cambridge University Press.
41.
FlemingS. M.DawN. D. (2017). Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general Bayesian framework for metacognitive computation. Psychological Review, 124(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000045
FlemingS. M.WeilR. S.NagyZ.DolanR. J.ReesG. (2010). Relating introspective accuracy to individual differences in brain structure. Science, 329, 1541–1543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1191883
44.
FrankD. J.KuhlmannB. G. (2017). More than just beliefs: Experience and beliefs jointly contribute to Vol. Effects on Metacognitive Judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(5), 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000332
45.
FrithC. D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2213–2223. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0123
46.
GillespieM.JamesA. N.FedermeierK. D.WatsonD. G. (2014). Verbal working memory predicts co-speech gesture: Evidence from individual differences. Cognition, 132(2), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.012
47.
GöksunT.Goldin-MeadowS.NewcombeN.ShipleyT. (2013). Individual differences in mental rotation: What does gesture tell us?Cogn Process, 14, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0549-1
48.
GoldA. U.PendergastP. M.OrmandC. J.BuddD. A.MuellerK. J. (2018). Improving spatial thinking skills among undergraduate geology students through short online training exercises. International Journal of Science Education, 40(18), 2205–2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1525621
49.
Goldin-MeadowS.BeilockS. L. (2010). Action’s influence on thought: The case of gesture. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388764
GoldsteinD.HaldaneD.MitchellC. (1990). Sex differences in visual-spatial ability: The role of performance factors. Memory & Cognition, 18, 546–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198487
53.
GuggenmosM.WilbertzG.HebartM. N.SterzerP. (2016). Mesolimbic confidence signals guide perceptual learning in the absence of external feedback. eLife, 5, Article e13388. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13388
54.
HegartyM. (2010). Components of spatial intelligence. In RossB. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 265–297). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52007-3
55.
HegartyM. (2018). Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure?Psychon Bull Rev, 25, 1212–1219. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1347-z
56.
HegartyM.BurteH.BooneA. P. (2018). Individual differences in large-scale spatial abilities and strategies. In MontelloD. R. (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral and cognitive geography (pp. 231–246). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717544.00022
57.
HildenbrandL.SanchezC. A. (2022). Metacognitive accuracy across cognitive and physical task domains. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1524–1530. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02066-4
58.
HostetterA. B.AlibaliM. W. (2007). Raise your hand if you’re spatial: Relations between verbal and spatial skills and gesture production. Gesture, 7(1), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.7.1.05hos
59.
HostetterA. B.AlibaliM. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.495
JostL.JansenP. (2020). A novel approach to analyzing all trials in chronometric mental rotation and description of a flexible extended library of stimuli. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 20(3), 234–256.
62.
JostL.JansenP. (2021). Are implicit affective evaluations related to mental rotation performance?Consciousness and Cognition, 94, Article 103178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103178
63.
KaufmanS. B. (2007). Sex differences in mental rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can they be accounted for by differences in working memory capacity?Intelligence, 35(3), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.07.009
64.
KitaS.AlibaliM. W.ChuM. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review, 124(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000059
65.
KitaS.ÖzyürekA. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00505-3
66.
KoriatA. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. Psychological Review, 100(4), 609–637.
67.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.4.349
68.
KoriatA.GoldsmithM. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103(3), 490–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.490
69.
KoriatA.Levy-SadotR. (1999). Processes underlying metacognitive judgments: Information-based and experience-based monitoring of one’s own knowledge. In ChaikenS.TropeY (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 483–502). Guilford Press.
70.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
71.
KvideraS.KoutstaalW. (2008). Confidence and decision type under matched stimulus conditions: Overconfidence in perceptual but not conceptual decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.587
72.
LajoieS. P.LiS.ZhengJ. (2021). The functional roles of metacognitive judgement and emotion in predicting clinical reasoning performance with a computer simulated environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1931347
73.
LausbergH.SloetjesH. (2009). Coding gestural behavior with the NEUROGES-ELAN system. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 841–849. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.841
LinnM. C.PetersenA. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467
ManiscalcoB.LauH. (2014). Signal detection theory analysis of type 1 and type 2 data: Meta-d’, response-specific meta-d’, and the unequal variance SDT model. In FlemingS. M.FrithC. D.. (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of metacognition (pp. 25–66). Springer.
79.
MartensJ.AntonenkoP. D. (2012). Narrowing gender-based performance gaps in virtual environment navigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 809–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.008
80.
McNeillD. (1992). Hand and mind. The University of Chicago Press.
81.
MeteyardL.DaviesR. A. (2020). Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 112, Article 104092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092
82.
MitchumA. L.KelleyC. M. (2010). Solve the problem first: Constructive solution strategies can influence the accuracy of retrospective confidence judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(3), 699.
83.
NavajasJ.BahramiB.LathamP. E. (2016). Post-decisional accounts of biases in confidence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 11, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.05.005
84.
NazarethA.HerreraA.PrudenS. M. (2013). Explaining sex differences in mental rotation: Role of spatial activity experience. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0542-8
85.
NelsonT. O. (1996). Gamma is a measure of the accuracy of predicting performance on one item relative to another item, not of the absolute performance on an individual item comments on Schraw (1995). Applied Cognitive Psycho-logy, 10(3), 257–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199606)10:3<257::AID-ACP400>3.0.CO;2-9
86.
NelsonT. O.NarensL. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125–156). Academic Press.
87.
NewcombeN. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29.
NovackM. A.Goldin-MeadowS. (2017). Gesture as representational action: A paper about function. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 652–665. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1145-z
90.
OrdinM.PolyanskayaL. (2021). The role of metacognition in recognition of the content of statistical learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(1), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01800-0
91.
OviattS.LinJ.SriramuluA. (2021). I know what you know: What hand movements reveal about domain expertise. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 11(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3423049
92.
ÖzerD.GöksunT. (2020). Gesture use and processing: A review on individual differences in cognitive resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 573555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573555
93.
PalserE. R.FotopoulouA.KilnerJ. M. (2018). Altering movement parameters disrupts metacognitive accuracy. Consciousness and Cognition, 57, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.11.005
94.
PeirceJ.GrayJ. R.SimpsonS.MacAskillM.HöchenbergerR.SogoH.KastmanE.LindeløvJ. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research, 51, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
95.
PescetelliN.ReesG.BahramiB. (2016). The perceptual and social components of metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 949–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000180
96.
PetersM.BattistaC. (2008). Applications of mental rotation figures of the Shepard and Metzler type and description of a mental rotation stimulus library. Brain and Cognition, 66(3), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/
97.
PingR.RatliffK.HickeyE.LevineS. (2011). Using manual rotation and gesture to improve mental rotation in preschoolers. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 33, No. 33). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/75q80579
98.
PleskacT. J.BusemeyerJ. R. (2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence. Psychological Review, 117(3), 864–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019737
99.
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
100.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013684
101.
RummelJ.MeiserT. (2013). The role of metacognition in prospective memory: Anticipated task demands influence attention allocation strategies. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 931–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.006
102.
ScherbaumC. A.FerreterJ. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906
103.
SheaN.BoldtA.BangD.YeungN.HeyesC.FrithC. D. (2014). Supra-personal cognitive control and metacognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.006
104.
ShekharM.RahnevD. (2021). The nature of metacognitive inefficiency in perceptual decision making. Psychological Review, 128(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000249
SidneyP. G.ThompsonC. A.FitzsimmonsC.TaberJ. M. (2021). Children’s and adults’ math attitudes are differentiated by number type. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1653815
107.
SmithsonL.NicoladisE. (2013). Verbal memory resources predict iconic gesture use among monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(4), 934–944. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000175
108.
SnijdersT. A. B. (2005). Power sample size in multilevel linear models. In EverittB. S.HowellD. C. (Eds.), Howell encyclopedia of statistics behavioral science (Vol. 3, pp. 1570–1573). John Wiley & Sons.
109.
SoW. C.ShumP. L. C.WongM. K. Y. (2015). Gesture is more effective than spatial language in encoding spatial information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(12), 2384–2401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1015431
110.
StieffM.DixonB. L.RyuM.KumiB. C.HegartyM. (2014). Strategy training eliminates sex differences in spatial problem solving in a stem domain. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034823
111.
The MathWorks Inc. (2022). MATLAB version: 9.13.0 (R2021a), Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc. https://www.mathworks.com
112.
ThomasA. K.BonuraB. M.TaylorH. A.BrunyeT. T. (2012). Metacognitive monitoring in visuospatial working memory. Psychology and Aging, 27(4), 1099–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028556
113.
UttalD. H.CohenC. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? In RossB. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 57, pp. 147–181). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2
114.
UttalD. H.MeadowN. G.TiptonE.HandL. L.AldenA. R.WarrenC.NewcombeN. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446
115.
van der PlasE.ZhangS.DongK.BangD.LiJ.WrightN. D.FlemingS. M. (2022). Identifying cultural differences in metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 3268–3280. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001209
116.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.SwellerJ. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
117.
VoyerD. (2011) Time limits and gender differences on paper-and-pencil tests of mental rotation: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review18, 267–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0042-0
118.
VoyerD.PostmaA.BrakeB.Imperato-McGinleyJ. (2007). Gender differences in object location memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 23–38.
119.
VoyerD.VoyerS. D.BrydenM. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250
120.
VoyerD.VoyerS. D.Saint-AubinJ. (2017). Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 307–334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1085-7
121.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
122.
WakefieldE. M.FoleyA. E.PingR.VillarrealJ. N.Goldin-MeadowS.LevineS. C. (2019). Breaking down gesture and action in mental rotation: Understanding the components of movement that promote learning. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 981–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000697
123.
WangL.CarrM. (2014). Working memory and strategy use contribute to gender differences in spatial ability. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.960568
124.
WestfallJ.KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (2014). Statist-ical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2020–2045. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014
125.
WhatleyM.StichA. (2021). From exclusive to inclusive: A mixed-methods investigation of study abroad participation and practices. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(1), 140–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1768778
126.
WickhamH. (2006). An introduction to ggplot: An implementation of the grammar of graphics in R. Statistics.
YangW.LiuH.ChenN.XuP.LinX. (2020). Is early spatial skills training effective? A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01938
131.
YeungN.SummerfieldC. (2012). Metacognition in human decision-making: Confidence and error monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), 1310–1321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0416
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
