↓ Skip to main content

Breaking new ground in the mind: an initial study of mental brittle transformation and mental rigid rotation in science experts

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Processing, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Breaking new ground in the mind: an initial study of mental brittle transformation and mental rigid rotation in science experts
Published in
Cognitive Processing, February 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10339-013-0548-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilyse Resnick, Thomas F. Shipley

Abstract

The current study examines the spatial skills employed in different spatial reasoning tasks, by asking how science experts who are practiced in different types of visualizations perform on different spatial tasks. Specifically, the current study examines the varieties of mental transformations. We hypothesize that there may be two broad classes of mental transformations: rigid body mental transformations and non-rigid mental transformations. We focus on the disciplines of geology and organic chemistry because different types of transformations are central to the two disciplines: While geologists and organic chemists may both confront rotation in the practice of their profession, only geologists confront brittle transformations. A new instrument was developed to measure mental brittle transformation (visualizing breaking). Geologists and organic chemists performed similarly on a measure of mental rotation, while geologists outperformed organic chemists on the mental brittle transformation test. The differential pattern of skill on the two tests for the two groups of experts suggests that mental brittle transformation and mental rotation are different spatial skills. The roles of domain general cognitive resources (attentional control, spatial working memory, and perceptual filling in) and strategy in completing mental brittle transformation are discussed. The current study illustrates how ecological and interdisciplinary approaches complement traditional cognitive science to offer a comprehensive approach to understanding the nature of spatial thinking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 25%
Social Sciences 11 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 11 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,191,579
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#292
of 335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,544
of 192,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 192,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.