↓ Skip to main content

The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects
Published in
Psychological Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00426-016-0749-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara Meneghetti, Ramona Cardillo, Irene C. Mammarella, Sara Caviola, Erika Borella

Abstract

Research in the domain of spatial abilities is now focusing on whether spatial abilities can be trained, and whether this can produce gains and maintenance effects in other, untrained skills. The aim of the present study was to assess the benefit and maintenance effects of two types of mental rotation training, one based on mental rotation practice alone, the other combining mental rotation practice with the use of a spatial (rotation) strategy. Seventy-two females took part in the study: 24 practiced with a rotation task that involved comparing pairs of 3D objects [the mental rotation (MR) group], 24 were taught to use the rotation strategy while practicing with the rotation task [the strategy + mental rotation (S + MR) group], and 24 were involved in parallel non-spatial activities (the active control group). Transfer effects were sought on both untrained spatial tasks (testing object rotation and perspective taking) and fluid ability tasks; self-reported strategy use was also examined. Our results showed short-term benefits and maintenance effects in the MR and the S + MR groups in terms of their accuracy in both the MR tasks considered (a 3D same/different task, and the Mental Rotations Test). The S + MR group was more accurate at follow-up than at post-test in both MR tasks, and reported using the rotation strategy in association with the tasks; this group was also more accurate at follow-up than at pre-test in the perspective-taking and fluid intelligence tasks. These findings are discussed from the spatial cognition standpoint and with reference to the (rotation) training literature.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 42%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2021.
All research outputs
#7,488,524
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#287
of 974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,461
of 400,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.