Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

Abstract

We examined individual performance on an embedded figures test, in two separate studies. Performance measures were both the number (m) of hits (H) and the number of false alarms (FA), and their respective reaction times (RT). Using these measures, we postulated four templates of performance, indicative of field dependence (mH = low, RTH = long, mFA = high), field independence (mH = high, RTH = short, mFA = low), impulsiveness (mH = low, RTH = short, mFA = high), and reflectiveness (mH = high, RTH = long, mFA = low). In the first study, individual profiles were correlated with these four templates, whose mean values were updated in a stepwise manner, under the constraint that the individual profile had to be substantially correlated with the emerging template (r > 0.9). This procedure resulted in the final placement of a total of 64 individuals (80%) into one of the four templates. In the second study, we could identify 87% of the participants in such a manner. These participants also provided us with performance data on the rod-and-frame test (RFT), and a line-bisection task (whose analysis here is innovative), as well as scores on the sensation-seeking scales. We emphasize the utility of adopting such a finely-tuned approach to the study of the disembedding aspect of the cognitive style, and to the profiling of individual differences in general.

A suspended act: increased reflectivity and gender-dependent electrophysiological change following Quadrato Motor Training

“…We employed a computerized version of the Hidden Figures Test (HFT, detailed in Glicksohn and Kinberg, 2009), generated using E-Prime 1.1 (Psychology Software Tools). The participants were required to locate a simple figure embedded within a complex figure, both of them appearing on the screen, side by side (Figure 2).…”

“…The participants were allocated 30 s for each of 16 trials. Based on the data collected by Glicksohn and Kinberg (2009), we split the test into two even sets of 8 tasks, matched for degree of difficulty, defined as number of hits for item/(number of hits + number of false alarms for item) in that study ( n = 80). The two sets were presented in a counterbalanced order across participants.…”

“…Reflectivity can be directly measured by a spatial task assessing Field Dependence-Independence (FDI) (Glicksohn and Kinberg, 2009), named the Hidden Figures Test (HFT). Here, we set out to investigate a possible QMT-induced increase in reflectivity using the HFT.…”

“…Importantly, reflectivity has been found to be modifiable by training (Messer, 1976). One way to measure reflectivity is by means of a spatial task of embedded figures, originally designed to assess FDI (Glicksohn and Kinberg, 2009). FDI describes two contrasting ways of processing information, Field Dependence (FD) and Field Independence (FI), this being the most studied cognitive style (Witkin et al, 1977), and is the mode by which learners approach, acquire and process information (Witkin and Goodenough, 1981).…”

“…In contrast, FI individuals have less difficulty in separating the essential information from its context, and are more likely to be influenced by internal than external cues, and to be more selective in their information input (Riding and Cheema, 1991; Zhang, 2004). Glicksohn and Kinberg (2009) examined individual performance on embedded figures tests. Using reaction time (RT) and the number of correct detections, they postulated four templates of performance, indicative of: (1) FI—participants detect more embedded figures, and do so quite quickly; (2) FD—participants detect fewer embedded figures, and do so quite slowly; (3) impulsiveness (Imp)—individuals detect fewer embedded figures, and do so quite quickly; and (4) reflectiveness (Ref)—individuals detect more embedded figures, and do so quite slowly.…”