Cognitive Subprocesses of Mental Rotation: Why is a Good Rotator Better Than a Poor One?

Abstract

The Vanderberg-Kuse Mental Rotation Test is a standard test of mental rotation ability. Recent experiments have demonstrated that mental rotation is a complex cognitive process wherein different subprocesses (focused attention, visual scanning, perceptual decision, visual memory) play important roles in performance. We classified the population as good and poor rotators by performance of mental rotation (n s = 47: 22 men and 25 women, respectively; mean age: 20.7 yr.). To examine differences cognitive subprocesses of mental rotation of these two groups were compared. There were significant differences between poor and good rotators in performance on Raven's test and the Pieron Focused Attention test scores. The good rotators scored better because their perceptual decision-analytical intelligence (Raven) and focused attention scores were higher.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Carpenter

P. A.

Just

M. A.

Shell

(1990) What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431.

Cook

N. D.

Früh

Mehr

Regard

Landis

(1994) Hemispheric cooperation in visuospatial rotations: Evidence for a manipulation role of the left hemisphere and a reference role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 25, 240–249.

Crucian

Berenbaum

S. A.

(1998) Sex differences in right hemisphere tasks. Brain and Cognition, 36, 377–389.

Hodges

J. R.

(1996) Cognitive assessment for clinicians. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.

Johnson

A. M.

(1990) Speed of mental rotation as a function of problem-solving strategies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 803–806.

Karádi

Kállai

Szabó

Kovács

Szepesi

(1999) Sex differences on the hand mental rotation task for 9-yr.-old children and young adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 969–972.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(1999) Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kosslyn

S. M.

Digirolamo

G. J.

Thompson

W. L.

Alpert

N. M.

(1998) Mental rotation of objects versus hands: Neural mechanisms revealed by position emission tomography. Psychophysiology, 35, 151–161.

Lezak

M. D.

(1995) Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford Univer. Press.

10.

Raven

J. C.

(1962) Advanced progressive matrices, Set II. London: Lewis. (Distr. in the United States by The Psychological Corp., San Antonio, TX).

11.

Sandstrom

N. J.

Kaufman

Huettel

S. A.

(1998) Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 351–360.

12.

Shepard

R. N.

Judd

S. A.

(1976) Perceptual illusion of rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 191,952–954.

13.

Shepard

R. N.

Metzler

(1971) Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.

14.

Uecker

Orbzut

J. E.

(1993) Hemisphere and gender differences in mental rotation. Brain and Cognition, 22, 42–50.

15.

Vanderberg

S. C.

Kuse

A. R.

(1978) Mental rotation: A group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.

16.

Wexler

Kosslyn

S. M.

Berthoz

(1998) Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68, 77–94.

17.

Wohlschlager

(1998) Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 397–412.

18.

Woodworth

R. S.

Schlosberg

R. H.

(1961) Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.