Effect of Practice and Training in Spatial Skills on Embedded Figures Scores of Males and Females

Abstract

The effect of practice and training in spatial skills on scores obtained by male and female students on the Embedded Figures Test was examined. Forms A and B were administered 6 wk. apart to three groups of subjects (ns = 28, 27, 27) enrolled in drafting, mathematics, and liberal arts courses. During the pretest-posttest period the drafting students received training while the other two groups served as controls. Analysis indicated (1) no initial sex difference in test scores; (2) liberal arts students differed significantly from drafting and mathematics students, but there was no significant difference between the last two groups; (3) all groups improved with practice; (4) women receiving training improved more than women who did not; (5) there was a trend toward women receiving spatial training scoring more poorly than males receiving training on the pretest, but there was no significant difference on the posttest. These results suggest that sex differences in embedded-figures scores found by many previous experimenters may have been associated with differences in prior experience in spatial skills and by a confounding of sex with area of academic study.

The effect of age, sex and gonadectomy on dogs’ use of spatial navigation strategies

“…Lacreuse and collaborators (2005) showed that training completely reverses female disadvantage in solving a spatial task in young macaques. In addition, sex specific effects of training on spatial tasks have been reported in rats (Perrot-Sinal et al, 1996) and humans (Goldstein and Chance, 1965;Johnson et al, 1979;Saccuzzo et al, 1996;Stericker and LeVesconte, 1982;Vasta et al, 1996). Since our males were already close to the maximum possible performance at a young age, no further improvement could be expected during ageing.…”

Sex, Age, and Training Modulate Spatial Memory in the Rhesus Monkey (Macaca mulatta).

“…Males and females have been found to rely on different cues (Tropp & Markus, 2001), with males being more selectively tuned to geometry and females to objects or landmarks (Astur, Ortiz, & Sutherland, 1998;Collaer & Nelson, 2002;Dabbs, Chang, Strong, & Milun, 1997;Galea & Kimura, 1993;Miller & Santoni, 1986;Sandstrom et al, 1998;Saucier et al, 2002). Improved performance in females, but not males, after training has also been reported in rats (Perrot-Sinal, Kostenuik, Ossenkopp, & Kavaliers, 1996) and in several human studies (Goldstein & Chance, 1965;Goldstein et al, 1990;Johnson, Flinn, & Tyer, 1979;Sacuzzo, Craig, Johnson, & Larson, 1996;Stericker & LeVesconte, 1983;Vasta, Knott, & Gaze, 1996).…”

Do sex-related differences in spatial abilities exist? A multilevel critique with new data.

“…If performance on spatial tasks is largely biologically determined, then it should be highly resistant to change. However, Connor, Schackman, and Serbin (1978), Goldstein and Chance (1965), and Johnson (1976) have demonstrated that sex differences in performance on one spatial measure, the Embedded Figures Test (EFT), could be eradicated through practice or through the training of females.…”