2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

55
567
7
17

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 691 publications
(670 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
55
567
7
17
Order By: Relevance
“…This is to say not that the congenitally blind do not have a functional haptic system, but that it is the scale of an environment, rather than the learning modality, that is critical. This alternative explanation deserves more systematic exploration, given the well-documented differences between small-scale and large-scale spatial abilities (see Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa, & Lovelace, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is to say not that the congenitally blind do not have a functional haptic system, but that it is the scale of an environment, rather than the learning modality, that is critical. This alternative explanation deserves more systematic exploration, given the well-documented differences between small-scale and large-scale spatial abilities (see Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa, & Lovelace, 2006).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Liben & Downs, 1993;Wiener, Hölscher, Büchner, & Konieczny, 2012) and spatial abilities (e.g. Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa, & Lovelace, 2006;Miyake, Friedman, Rettinger, Shah, & Hegarty, 2001). We also adopt concepts from psychological studies, for example, how visual attention directs map reading (Carrasco, 2011) and leads to errors in map interpretation (Fish, Goldsberry, & Battersby, 2011), or how individual and group differences in visual and spatial abilities might affect map-use performance (McGuinness, 1994).…”
Section: Psychologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of course, the mental rotation component itself is one of the most obvious candidates on this point. In fact, although the VV Test has been presented by some as a measure of perspective taking (e.g., Hegarty et al, 2009), only a mental rotation component could account for the large magnitude of gender differences observed here on this test, especially considering the absence of gender differences on the PTSOT in the present study (on this point, see also Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa, & Lovelace, 2006;Zacks, Mires, Tversky, & Hazeltine, 2000). This suggests the possibility that participants favor a mental rotation strategy rather than a perspective change strategy on the VV Test.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%