Testing between the gunpowder fuse and the filling-hose analogy for mental curve tracing using electroencephalography

Lefebvre, Christine; Audevard, Thibaud; Losier, Talia; Jolicœur, Pierre

doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000001114

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerning the observed correlations between curve tracing and the other tasks, at this early stage, we can only speculate concerning the common components among the tasks. Curve tracing could be seen as a pure attention task, where attention travels along the curve until the second point is encountered (Lefebvre, Audevard, Losier, & Jolicoeur, 2018). As such, the observed correlations could be interpreted as a result of the fact that all perceptual tasks require attention at least to some extent (Coren, Ward, & Enns, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in curve tracing.

Voyer¹,

MacPherson²

2020

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study reports on 4 experiments aimed at investigating potential sex differences on a curve tracing task. Furthermore, curve tracing was used as an indirect approach to explore the holistic versus piecemeal strategy hypothesis used to account for sex differences in mental rotation. In Experiment 1, participants only completed a curve tracing task. The Navon (1977) local/global task was added in Experiment 2, whereas mental rotation was included in Experiment 3. Experiment 4 corrected issues encountered with the mental rotation task in Experiment 3. All 4 experiments showed a performance advantage for men on accuracy in curve tracing, although the Sex × Distance interaction required to support preference for a holistic strategy in men was not found. The Navon task findings supported the notion that men show a reduced global precedence effect when compared with women. The performance advantage for men in mental rotation only emerged in Experiment 4. Finally, the tasks showed a pattern of correlations suggestive of common components aside from attention. The General Discussion focuses on alternative explanations of the findings and further research required to elucidate them.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex differences in curve tracing.

Voyer¹,

MacPherson²

2020

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result of this process, a central prediction of the spreading attention model is that the curve remains activated once attention has traced it. However, electrophysiological studies (e.g., Lefebvre et al, 2011Lefebvre et al, , 2018 have shown that this is not the case. Specifically, Lefebvre et al (2018) compared the process to a flame running along the curve like a gunpowder fuse with the curve section returning to baseline after the passage of the flame (i.e., attention).…”

Section: Bipartite Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, electrophysiological studies (e.g., Lefebvre et al, 2011Lefebvre et al, , 2018 have shown that this is not the case. Specifically, Lefebvre et al (2018) compared the process to a flame running along the curve like a gunpowder fuse with the curve section returning to baseline after the passage of the flame (i.e., attention). Furthermore, in a series of computational simulations, Marić and Domijan (2019) concluded that the zoom lens model remains a valid approach to describe the curve-tracing process, although it fails to provide a clear explanation of the underlying neurocomputational processes.…”

Section: Bipartite Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Picking up the pieces: Sex differences in mechanisms of curve tracing.

Millett¹,

Voyer²

2021

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined potential sex differences in the application of models of curve tracing, namely the pixel-by-pixel model, the bipartite model, and the zoom lens model. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine whether sex differences existed in terms of reliance on a particular model or whether the results of each sex could be best explained by one model. This was done by examining the combined data obtained by Voyer and MacPherson (2020), consisting of 420 participants, with 194 men and 226 women. We examined only the curve-tracing task data from that study and compared the fit of the different models as well as a possible interaction with sex of participants on the proportion of correct responses and response time. Overall, sex was a significant factor, with men showing better average accuracy and faster performance than women. On accuracy, we found that the pixel-by-pixel model provided the best fit for women, whereas the zoom lens model produced the best fit for men. On response time, the zoom model was the best predictor of response time for both sexes. The discussion elaborates on an account of these findings and on how our results might generalize to other visual-spatial tasks where a performance advantage for men is found. Public Significance StatementThis study presents a reanalysis of previously published research suggesting that women and men both use a piecemeal, part-by-part strategy when mentally tracing a curve despite an overall performance advantage for men. The results presented here suggest that men are using a larger attentional window than women when processing the curves. This work provides evidence that it might be possible to promote an optimal strategy when processing visual-spatial tasks.

show abstract

Testing between the gunpowder fuse and the filling-hose analogy for mental curve tracing using electroencephalography

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Sex differences in curve tracing.

Sex differences in curve tracing.

Picking up the pieces: Sex differences in mechanisms of curve tracing.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About