Abstract
Previous studies comparing performance on standard (i.e., static) and dynamic spatial test items have concluded that the two item types measure different abilities. Such conclusions about the uniqueness of static and dynamic spatial abilities seem premature, however, since only a limited number of dynamic spatial tasks have been utilized in research and these have differed markedly from their static counterparts. In the present studies, tasks were designed to require a common mental operation (mental rotation) under static and dynamic conditions. Correlations between static and dynamic performance ranged from .80 to .90. This appears to suggest that the emergence of a unique dynamic ability factor depends on the utilization of certain specialized tasks (e.g., arrival time tasks) with mental operations much different than those required by conventional spatial tests. In other words, it is apparently the requirement for different cognitive processes and not the processing of stimulus motion per se that distinguishes performance onsome dynamic tasks from performance on some standard static tasks.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alderton, D. L., &Larson, G. E. (1994). Cross-task consistency in strategy use and the relationship with intelligence.Intelligence,18, 47–76.
Cooper, L. A., &Mumaw, R. J. (1985). Spatial aptitude. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.),Individual differences in cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 67–94). New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, L. A., &Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Ed.),Visual information processing (pp. 75–176). New York: Academic Press.
Hunt, E., &Pellegrino, J. (1985). Using interactive computing to expand intelligence testing: A critique and prospectus.Intelligence,9, 207–236.
Hunt, E., Pellegrino, J., Frick, R. W., Farr, S. A., &Alderton, D. (1988). The ability to reason about movement in the visual field.Intelligence,12, 77–100.
Jensen, A. R., Saccuzzo, D. P., &Larson, G. E. (1988). Equating the standard and advanced forms of the Raven Progressive Matrices.Educational & Psychological Measurement,48, 1091–1095.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., &Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare: Gender differences and experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks.Psychological Science,4, 35–40.
Lohman, D. F. (1979).Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of the correlational literature (Tech. Rep. No. 8). Stanford University: School of Education Aptitude Research Project.
Pellegrino, J. W., &Hunt, E. B. (1989). Computer-controlled assessment of static and dynamic spatial reasoning. In R. F. Dillon and J.W. Pellegrino (Eds.),Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 174–198). New York: Praeger.
Pellegrino, J. W., &Kail, R. (1982). Process analyses of spatial aptitude. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 311–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pellegrino, J. W., Mumaw, R. J., &Shute, V. J. (1985). Analyses of spatial aptitude and expertise. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.),Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics (pp. 45–76). New York: Academic Press.
Raven, J. C. (1962).Advanced progressive matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
Thurstone, T. G. (1965).Primary mental abilities: Technical report. Chicago: SRA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The opinions expressed are those of the author, are not official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Navy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Larson, G.E. Mental rotation of static and dynamic figures. Perception & Psychophysics 58, 153–159 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205484
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205484