LAPORAN PRAKTIKUM PSIKOLOGI KOGNITIF

(1)

LAPORAN PRAKTIKUM PSIKOLOGI KOGNITIF Mental Rotation

LABORATORIUM PSIKOLOGI LANJUT

DISUSUN OLEH :

Nama : Gabriella Nadya M. Hetharua NPM : 10520412

Kelas : 3PA23

Tutor : Dina Maudi Lidiani

FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGI UNIVERSITAS GUNADARMA

2023

(2)

A. MATERI DAN TUJUAN PRAKTIKUM 1. Mental Rotation

2. Tujuan Praktikum

a. Mencocokan objek satu dengan objek lainnya

b. Membantu praktikan memahami dampak dari mental rotation B. TINJAUAN PUSTAKA MENTAL ROTATION

1. Definisi Mental Rotation

Menurut Kuhn, Lerner, Siegler & Damon (dalam Ark, 2006) rotasi mental adalah bentuk citra visual yang melibatkan gerakan melingkar yang dibayangkan dari suatu objek tertentu tentang tiang yang dibayangkan dari dalam ruang 2 atau 3 dimensi. Menurut Kumastuti, Supartono & Dwijanto (2013) rotasi mental adalah kemampuan untuk dapat menggambarkan bengun ruang di dimensi 2 atau 3, setelah dikenai rotasi. Menurut Johnson & Moore (2020) rotasi mental (MR) adalah keterampilan yang kita semua gunakan, saat kita berada mencoba menafsirkan ke arah mana peta menunjukkan kita harus memutar rotasi.

Berdasarkan definisi dari para tokoh diatas, dapat disimpulkan bahwa rotasi mental adalah kemampuan seseorang yang berkaitan dengan ruang atau peta, baik 2 dimensi maupun 3 dimensi.

2. Faktor-Fakor Mental Rotation pada Bayi a. Aktivitas Motorik

Menurut Johnson & Moore (2020) hipotesisi bahwa aktivitas motoric akan mempengaruhi kinerja pada tugas persepsi/kognitif, dan penelitian tentang MR pada anak-anak dan orang dewasa mengungkapkan bahwa MR yang melibatkan representasi tangan dipengaruhi oleh postur tubuh dan tangan peserta sendiri (dalam Funk, Brugger & Wilkening, 2020).

b. Stimulus atau Kompleksitas Tugas

Menurut Johnson & Moore (2020) kompleksitas harus dipahami dalam konteks ini sebagai fungsi dari keadaan perkembangan bayi;

stimulus atau tugas yang rumit dari sudut pandang satu bayi mungkin sederhana dari sudut pandang bayi

yang lebih tua.

c. Hormon

Menurut Johnson & Moore (2020) perbedaan jenis kelamin yang relatif besar secara konsisten diamati dalam karakteristik seperti tinggi badan, seksual orientasi, dan identitas gender, dan perkembangan karakteristik ini tampaknya dipengaruhi oleh paparan testosterone di awal kehidupan.

d. Sikap Orang Tua

Menurut Johnson & Moore (2020) meskipun saat ini kami tidak

mengetahui bagaimana sikap orang tua dapat memengaruhi kinerja

MR bayi, tampaknya masuk akal untuk mengharapkan bahwa

berbagai faktor pengalaman sosial dan lainnya berkontribusi pada

(3)

pengembangan kompetensi MR, dan pada pengembangan jenis kelamin dalam keterampilan ini.

C. JURNAL

1. Judul Artikel : The Role of Practice and Strategy in Mental Rotation Training:

Transfer and Maintenance Effects 2. Nama Jurnal, Volume dan

Tahun : Psychological Research, Vol. 81 No. 2

3. Penulis : Chiara Meneghetti, Irene Cristina Mammarella, Ramona Cardillo, Sara Caviola.

4. Tujuan dan Metode Penelitian

: Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengevaluasi manfaat dari dua jenis latihan rotasi mental: satu menggunakan latihan rotasi mental, sedangkan yang lain menggabungkannya dengan strategi spasial (rotasi).

Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah kuantitatif eksperimen.

5. Subjek Penelitian : Subjek penelitian ini adalah sampel sebanyak 72 mahasiswi.

6. Review : Penelitian terbaru dalam

kemampuan spasial telah mengalihkan fokusnya ke kemungkinan melatih kemampuan ini dan apakah pelatihan tersebut dapat menghasilkan peningkatan dan efek jangka panjang pada keterampilan yang tidak terkait.

Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi manfaat dan efek jangka panjang dari dua jenis pelatihan rotasi mental. Satu jenis hanya melibatkan latihan rotasi mental, sementara yang lain menggabungkan latihan rotasi mental dengan pemanfaatan strategi (rotasi) spasial.

Studi ini melibatkan tujuh

puluh dua peserta wanita, dibagi

menjadi tiga kelompok: kelompok

rotasi mental (MR), terdiri dari 24

(4)

orang yang berlatih tugas rotasi yang melibatkan perbandingan pasangan objek 3D; kelompok strategy-mental rotation (S-MR), yang terdiri dari 24 peserta yang diajari strategi rotasi bersamaan dengan latihan tugas rotasi; dan kelompok kontrol aktif, yang terlibat dalam kegiatan non- spasial. Para peneliti bertujuan untuk mengamati efek transfer apa pun pada tugas spasial yang tidak terlatih, seperti rotasi objek dan pengambilan perspektif, serta tugas intelijen cair. Selain itu, penggunaan strategi yang dilaporkan sendiri diperiksa.

Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa kelompok MR dan S-MR mengalami manfaat jangka pendek dan efek pemeliharaan jangka panjang dalam hal akurasi mereka dalam tugas rotasi mental yang dinilai, termasuk tugas 3D yang sama/berbeda dan tes rotasi mental. Selain itu, kelompok S- MR menampilkan akurasi yang lebih besar selama tindak lanjut dibandingkan dengan post-test di kedua tugas rotasi mental dan dilaporkan menggunakan strategi rotasi selama tugas ini. Selain itu, kelompok ini menunjukkan akurasi yang lebih baik dalam tugas pengambilan perspektif dan kecerdasan cair selama tindak lanjut dibandingkan dengan pra- tes. Temuan ini dibahas dalam kaitannya dengan kognisi spasial dan literatur yang ada tentang pelatihan (rotasi).

D. PERCOBAAN PRAKTIKUM 1. Langkah-langkah Percobaan

a. Buka link berikut https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/

b. Pada sisi kiri web ada beberapa pilihan, pilih "liat of experiments"

(5)

c. Pilih "mental rotation task"

d. Klik pda piliha "run the demo"

e. Tampilan awal pasa percobaan akan seperti berikut f. Bacalah dengan cermat instruksi tes

1) Anda diminta melihat tiga objek pada layer

2) Anda diminta untuk memilih, gambar mana yg paling tepat dan cocok dengan gambar yg berada diatas (gambar yg berwarna abu2)

3) Jika sudah memilih, anda diminta untuk klik gambar yg menurut anda benar

4) Tekan spasi untuk memulai percobaan

g. Saat selesai percobaan, akan ada tampilan seperti berikut (ss hasil ini)

h. Percentage correct (in second block) : 93 Average time per puzzle:

2217. Press space to continue

i. Akan muncul screen berwarna hitam kemudian klik bagian pojok kiri bawah "show data"

j. Pada akhir praktikum, akan muncul tampilan seperti disamping (ss bagian tabel)

E. HASIL DAN PEMBAHASAN

Berdasarkan praktikum pada hari rabu, tanggal 24 mei 2023 berikut hasil yang didapatkan pada saat praktikum berlangsung:

1. Hasil

Berikut merupakan hasil praktikum yang telah dilakukan oleh praktikan mengenai praktikum mental rotation.

Gambar 1 Tabel Psytoolkit Run Experiment 2. Pembahasan

Praktikum ini memberikan manfaat besar bagi praktikan dalam

meningkatkan pemahaman mereka tentang mental rotation. Melalui

(6)

praktikum ini, praktikan dapat mengalami secara langsung contoh nyata dari fenomena mental rotation dengan akses langsung ke sebuah website yang menggambarkan fenomena tersebut. Selain itu, praktikum ini juga membantu praktikan memahami konsep dan faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi kemampuan mental rotation pada setiap individu.

Penjelasan teori mengenai mental rotation pada bagian ini telah efektif memperluas pemahaman praktikan mengenai definisi dan konsepnya. Praktikan juga memperoleh pengetahuan yang lebih luas melalui penjelasan mengenai faktor-faktor yang memengaruhi mental rotation pada bayi, yang menunjukkan bahwa kemampuan mental rotation sudah terbentuk sejak usia dini.

Melalui review jurnal yang dilakukan praktikan, ditemukan penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya yang mengungkapkan bahwa latihan kemampuan mental rotation memberikan manfaat jangka pendek dan berkelanjutan dalam meningkatkan kinerja tugas mental rotation.

F. KESIMPULAN

Dapat disimpulkan praktikum mental rotation telah berjalan dengan baik

dan telah mencapai tujuan yang telah ditetapkan. Praktikan telah melakukan

pencocokan objek dan praktikum ini juga telah membantu praktikan

memahami dampak mental rotation.

(7)

Daftar Pustaka

Chiara, M., Irene, C. M., Ramona, C., & Sara, C. (2017). The Role of Practice and Strategy in Mental Rotation Training: Transfer and Maintenance Effects. Psychological Research, 81 (2), 1-18. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293808362_The_role_of_prac tice_and_strategy_in_mental_rotation_training_transfer_and_maintena nce_effects

Deanna, K., Richard, M. L., Robert, S. S., & Damon, W. (2006). Handbook of Child Psychology, Cognition, Perception, and Language (6th ed.).

Wiley. Retrieved from

https://www.google.co.id/books/edition/Handbook_of_Child_Psycholo gy_Cognition_P/bLZyrZHd1QkC?hl=id&gbpv=0

Kumastuti, Supartono, & Dwijanto. (2013). Pembelajaran Bercirikan Pemberdayaan Kegiatan Belajar Kelompok untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Keruangan. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 2 (1), 146-151. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/1237-Article%20Text-2552-1-10- 20130527.pdf

Scott, P. J., & David, S. M. (2020). Spatial Thinking in Infancy: Origins and

Development of Mental Rotation Between 3 and 10 of Age. Cognitive

Research: Principles and Implications, 5 (10), 1-14. Retrieved from

https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s412

35-020-00212-x

(8)

Lampiran

(9)

(10)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293808362

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

Article in Psychological Research · March 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0749-2

CITATIONS

39

READS

1,470 5 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

aging cognitionView project

Protective and risk factors related to academic achievementView project Chiara Meneghetti

University of Padova

137PUBLICATIONS 1,911CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Ramona Cardillo University of Padova 27PUBLICATIONS 247CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Irene Cristina Mammarella University of Padova

167PUBLICATIONS 4,392CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

Sara Caviola University of Leeds

44PUBLICATIONS 1,395CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Erika Borella on 18 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(11)

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training:

transfer and maintenance effects

Chiara Meneghetti¹^•Ramona Cardillo²^•Irene C. Mammarella²^• Sara Caviola²^• Erika Borella¹

Received: 29 September 2015 / Accepted: 30 January 2016 ÓSpringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

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.

Introduction

The literature on spatial abilities shows that this topic is attracting increasing interest, and the spatial dynamic dimension (based on rotation in particular) has been the object of training (Uttal et al., 2013; see the section on

‘‘Spatial dynamic abilities and training’’). Some research- ers have tried to identify factors capable of improving the efficiency of spatial ability training, and one such factor may be the use of a spatial (rotation) strategy (see the section on ‘‘Spatial strategies and spatial tasks’’).

The present study investigated the value of spatial (rotation) training by assessing the benefits of two training approaches, one based on mental rotation practice alone, the other combining mental rotation practice with the use of a spatial (rotation) strategy, comparing them with a control condition.

Spatial abilities

Spatial abilities are important in several everyday activities, influencing academic success in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM; Wai, Lubinski, &

Benbow, 2009; Lubinski, 2010; Uttal, Miller, & New- combe, 2013), navigation and way finding (Labate, Paz- zaglia, & Hegarty, 2014; Hegarty, Montello Richardson, Ishikawa, & Lovelace, 2006), and sporting activities (Jansen & Lehmann, 2013). Spatial abilities are used for reasoning about spatial elements and comprise different sub-abilities (Hegarty & Waller, 2005) that, using the 2 92 model proposed by Uttal et al. (2013), can be

& Chiara Meneghetti

chiara.meneghetti@unipd.it

1 Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padua, Italy

2 Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy

123

Psychological Research DOI 10.1007/s00426-016-0749-2

(12)

divided into two main dimensions, one intrinsic–extrinsic and the other static–dynamic. By combining these dimensions we can identify four types of spatial skill. Two are static: one is static–intrinsic, which involves perceiving objects in complex configurations; the other is static–extrinsic, which involves understanding abstract spatial principles. The other two are dynamic and involve making transformations on stimuli, which may be: intrinsically based, when mentally transforming objects (as in mental rotation tasks that involve rotating 2D or 3D objects); or extrinsically based when visualizing elements that occupy different positions in space (as in perspective-taking tasks).

Spatial dynamic abilities and training

Within the spatial abilities domain, the meta-analysis conducted by Uttal et al. (2013) provides an important overview on the malleability of spatial abilities—focusing mainly on intrinsic–dynamic abilities (i.e. 189 of the 217 studies considered rotation abilities). The meta-analysis discusses training procedures and rotation training benefits detectable in the spatial ability category that was the object of the training (using the same rotation tasks with different stimuli, or tasks with different spatial requests), or in different spatial ability categories.

Concerning the mental rotation tasks used in the training, most studies focused on: (1) repeated practice with comparisons between pairs of 3D objects like the cube figures used in the Mental Rotations Test (MRT; Van- denberg & Kuse, 1978)—(Wright, Thomson, Ganis, Newcombe, & Kosslyn, 2008; Leone, Taine, & Droulez, 1993); or (2) practice with 2D and 3D Tetris games (Moreau,2013; Terlecky, Newcombe, & Little, 2008); or (3) combinations of training tasks (e.g. 3D rotation tasks and Tetris games, as in Stransky, Wilcox, & Drubrosky, 2010).

As for the training gains after using different training procedures, as mentioned above, the studies showed benefits in tasks using materials similar to those used for the rotation training, but with novel stimuli (e.g. Leone et al., 1993), in other rotation tasks involving different requirements, such as gains in 2D and 3D object comparison tasks after practicing with 2D and 3D Tetris games (Moreau, 2013), and in tasks requiring rotation skills after practicing with the MRT (Stransky et al.,2010). Training gains were also reported in other spatial tasks relating to the same spatial ability category (as the one involved in the training), but with different spatial requests. For instance, Wright et al. (2008) trained two groups, one (the mental rotation group) practiced with 3D same/different comparisons, the other (the mental paper-folding group) practiced with the mental paper-folding task (based on visualizing folded cubes starting from unfolded ones; Shepard & Feng,1972).

Although both these training tasks can be classified as demanding intrinsic–dynamic skills (according to Uttal et al.,2013), the former relies on mental rotations, the latter on making spatial transformations (but not necessarily rotations). The results showed specific benefits of the training on the spatial task practiced by each group and transfer effects on other unpracticed spatial tasks (but little benefit on non-spatial tasks).

Few studies to date have examined the transfer effects of mental rotation training to spatial skills belonging to different categories from the one involved in the training. In a first study, Terlecki et al. (2008) examined whether practice with the MRT task (repeated practice group) or playing Tetris (videogames group) produced benefits on other spatial tasks. They found a better performance in the MRT in both groups, which was also maintained over time, but only the videogames group showed transfer effects (which persisted after 2–4 months) on spatial tasks that involved making spatial transformations, i.e. the Guilford and Zimmerman Task (1947), and the Surface Development Test (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976).

According to the Uttal et al. (2013) classification, the Guilford and Zimmerman Task (which involves visualizing how a change in a clock’s rotation will look) tests an ability that is dynamic (requiring rotation), but extrinsic. In another study, Meneghetti, Borella and Pazzaglia (2015) also explored the benefits of training with a rotation task (of intrinsic–dynamic type) on other tasks in the extrinsic–

dynamic category. The authors showed that practice with 2D and 3D paired object comparisons and Tetris games produced benefits that were also maintained (for at least a month) on: (1) rotation tasks in the same spatial ability category as the tasks used in the training, but based on different requests, i.e. the MRT and the Primary Mental Ability test (PMA-Spatial, Thurstone & Thurstone,1963);

(2) extrinsic–dynamic tasks, measured with the Object Perspective Test (OPT, Hegarty & Waller, 2004), which involves having to imagine occupying misaligned positions in object configurations. Taken together, these latter studies indicate that practice with rotation tasks produces benefits that are also maintained on tasks not only in the same (intrinsic–dynamic) spatial ability category as the task used in the training, but also in another (extrinsic–dynamic) category.

Despite encouraging evidence of the benefits of mental rotation training, there are also reports of practice with mental rotation failing to show any transfer effects when stimuli different from those used in the training phase are presented (Leone et al.,1993; Heil, Ro¨sler, Link, & Bajric, 1998), or when different types of rotation task are used (Sims & Mayer, 2002).

Overall, rotation training studies have shown that mental rotation ability may be malleable [though this has not Psychological Research

123

(13)

always been confirmed (Leone et al., 1993)] and its improvement after training is detectable in: (1) tasks that use different stimuli (Leone et al., 1993); (2) tasks that have spatial requirements that are different, but remain within the same intrinsic–dynamic category (Stransky et al.,2010) as the one used in the training; and (3) other spatial tasks belonging to another spatial ability category, such as the extrinsic–dynamic one (Terlecki et al., 2008;

Meneghetti et al.,2015).

Given that the overall picture is still unclear, it is worth further analyzing how to improve and maintain the benefits of training on mental rotation skills, and also on other, not directly trained spatial abilities. Since it has been demon- strated that performance in MR tasks is associated with the use of strategies, and that a strategy based on mental rotation is particularly effective (Gluck & Fitting,2003for a review; Linn & Petersen,1985), one way to elucidate the malleability of rotation skills is to associate MR practice with the use of a rotation strategy.

Spatial strategies and spatial tasks

Studies exploring the use of different strategies when approaching rotation tasks can adopt self-reported measures (see Gluck & Fitting, 2003 for a review; Linn &

Petersen,1985) and identify the following strategies: (1) spatial strategies based on the rotation of the whole figure;

(2) non-spatial strategies, that may be either analytical (e.g.

mentally rotating a stimulus piece by piece), or verbal (linguistically labeling parts of an object); or (3) combinations of these strategies. Studies have shown that a self- reported considerable use of spatial strategies based on the rotation of whole figures (Freedman & Rovegno, 1981;

Moe`, Meneghetti, & Cadinu,2009) or, more in general, on the manipulation of whole spatial stimuli (Pazzaglia &

Moe`, 2013; Meneghetti, Ronconi, Pazzaglia, De Beni, 2014; Shelton & Gabrieli, 2004) coincides with a good performance in the MRT task. These results indicate that spatial strategies can positively influence the ability to solve rotation tasks.

Although the use of spatial strategies in spatial ability training has not been approached directly, encouraging results emerge from the spatial cognition domain. Some studies showed that spatial abilities and spatial strategy use both contributed effectively to supporting spatial learning (Meneghetti et al., 2014; Stieff, Dixon, Ryu, Kumi, &

Hegarty, 2014). Other studies found that spatial learning accuracy benefited when participants were taught to use spatial strategies based on images of global configurations when acquiring environmental information (Gyselinck, De Beni Pazzaglia, Meneghetti, & Mondoloni, 2007; Mene- ghetti, De Beni, Gyselinck & Pazzaglia, 2013; Taylor, Naylor & Chechile,1999). Overall, these findings indicate

that self-reported spatial strategy use (e.g. Moe` et al.,2009) or being instructed to use strategies (e.g. Gyselinck et al., 2007) can positively influence spatial learning and/or spatial task performance.

Given the importance of focusing on the malleability of intrinsic–dynamic abilities (such as rotation)—for their impact on everyday spatial activities (Wai et al., 2009;

Lubinski,2010), and because most training studies in this domain are based on practice (Leone et al.,1993; Terlecki et al.,2008)—we newly examine the role of practice with a spatial (rotation) task in association with the use of a strategy. We thus explore whether using a specifically- taught spatial (rotation) strategy while practicing with mental rotation tasks can produce more benefits than practice with mental rotation tasks alone.

Rationale and aims of the study

The aims of the present study were: (1) to clarify whether practicing with an intrinsic–dynamic (i.e. rotation) task improves performance in rotation tasks and also in tasks that test other spatial abilities, and whether these improvements are maintained; and (2) to examine whether practice with a rotation task combined with the use of rotation strategies produces additional benefits (vis-a`-vis practice alone) in rotation tasks and other spatial tasks, and whether any such benefits are maintained.

For this purpose, we adopted three different training conditions, dividing participants into three groups: one group practiced repeatedly with a 3D same/different mental rotation task (the MR group); a second group was taught how to use rotation strategies before they practiced with the 3D same/different task [the strategy plus mental rotation (S?MR) group]; and the third group performed non- spatial activities (active control group). We opted to include only females in our samples because: (1) they generally perform less well than males in MR tasks (Linn

& Petersen,1985; Voyer, Voyer & Bryden,1995); and (2) they are less inclined to use spatial (global) strategies to solve MR tasks (Lawton, 2010; Gluck & Fitting,2003).

First of all, since a training based on intrinsic–dynamic abilities is known to be able to produce benefits in the same spatial ability category when different stimuli and tasks are used (Leone et al., 1993; Wright et al. (2008), the short- term and maintenance benefits of mental rotation training were explored using the task practiced during the training sessions (a 3D same/different task with different figures) and another type of intrinsic–dynamic task not practiced during the training, but that also involved rotation pro- cesses, i.e. the Vandenberg and Kuse MRT. The analysis of any benefits was also extended to the extrinsic–dynamic category by including a perspective-taking task, i.e. the Object Perspective Test (OPT, Hegarty & Waller,2004).

Psychological Research

123

(14)

Finally, given that rotation abilities are considered a part of the spatial intelligence factor (Martı`nez et al., 2011;

Martinez & Colom, 2009; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005;

Sheldon, 1992), and spatial intelligence and fluid intelligence factors are believed to be related to one another (Martı`nez et al.,2011), we examined whether practice with rotation tasks (alone or after learning to use strategies) can have an impact on a fluid (reasoning) intelligence task like the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT; Cattell, 1973), which is based on the ability to detect patterns and relations, solve problems, and ‘‘figure things out’’ in novel environments.

In addition, because the use of a strategy was expected to influence spatial task performance (Gluck & Fitting, 2003; Moe` et al., 2009), participants answered questionnaires on their strategy use after completed the 3D same/

different task, MRT and OPT at pre- and post-test, and follow-up. In particular, the questionnaires on the 3D same/

different task and MRT included spatial (rotation), non- spatial and perspective-taking strategy items.

We thus explored whether our trained (MR and S?MR) groups showed:

1. Specific benefits of MR training across sessions of practice with 3D same/different tasks [in terms of response times (RTs) and accuracy]. We expected participants in the MR and S-MR groups to become faster and more accurate than the Control group in comparing all stimuli, even with increasing angular disparities (as shown in previous studies, e.g. Wright et al.,2008).

2. Transfer effects on: (1) intrinsic-dynamic tasks based on object rotations (the same spatial ability category as the tasks used in the training). We expected to find trained participants more accurate and faster in performing a task that was the same as the one used during the training, but with different stimuli—the 3D same/different (criterion) task (as shown by Leone et al., 1993)—and we expected transfer effects on the MRT (as suggested in some previous studies, e.g.

Wright et al.,2008; Meneghetti et al.,2015); (2) other types of spatial task belonging to a different spatial ability category, such as the OPT, which demands extrinsic–dynamic skills (as previously suggested by Terlecki et al.,2008; Meneghetti et al.,2015); (3) fluid (reasoning) abilities (as measured with the CFIT); the benefits of rotation training might extend to reasoning tasks too, since previous studies found rotation ability related to fluid intelligence (Sheldon,1992; Martı`nez et al., 2011); and (4) maintenance benefits on the trained tasks, and on other untrained spatial tasks with different requirements that focused both on rotation (intrinsic–dynamic) and other spatial (extrinsic–

dynamic) abilities (Terlecki et al., 2008; Meneghetti et al., 2015), and on fluid reasoning (as previously suggested, e.g. Borella, Carretti, Cantarella, Riboldi, Zavagnin & De Beni,2014).

We explored whether the two training groups had different short-term and maintenance benefits, expect- ing the S?MR group to show greater benefits (and their better maintenance) than the MR group, for some measures at least, because of the positive impact of using a rotation strategy on performance in MR tasks (Gluck & Fitting,2003; Moe` et al.,2009).

3. We explored any benefits of strategy use (as rated by means of the questionnaire) and their maintenance. We examined whether the S?MR group (taught to use a whole figure rotation strategy) reported making more use of a rotation strategy to solve the MR tasks (the 3D same/different task and the MRT) than the other groups and their maintenance We also examined any changes in the use of strategies to perform the OPT after the training.

Method Participants

A sample of 72 female university students voluntarily took part in the study (age M=20.23; SD 1.328). Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: 24 who practiced with a 3D same/different rotation task (MR group); 24 who were first taught to use a rotation strategy, and then practiced with the 3D same/different rotation task (S ?MR group);

and 24 who performed non-spatial activities (active control group). The students were matched for spatial and verbal abilities by administering the primary mental ability (PMA) tasks for spatial relations and verbal meaning (Thurstone &

Thurstone,1963): the three groups did not differ in terms of accuracy (F_s\1) in the spatial (S ?MR: M 20.25, SD 6.63;

MR: M 21.17, SD 8.57; active control: M 20.92, SD 9.09) or verbal (S?MR: M 25.50, SD 6.15; MR: M 24.12, SD 7.20;

active control: M 23.67, SD 8.66) tasks.

3D same/different MR task

The base image used in this task—developed by Shepard and Metzler (1971)—consists of ten assembled cubes forming four branches; the images were drawn from the stimulus library prepared by Peters and Battista (2008).

The task involves comparing pairs of figures (half of them composed of white cubes and the other half composed of grey and white cubes), and judging whether the figures are the ‘‘same’’ or ‘‘different’’. The ‘‘same’’ figures may have Psychological Research

123

(15)

nine different degrees of angular disparity—40°, 80°, 120°

or 160° (clockwise), 200°, 240°, 280° or 320° (counter- clockwise)—and also be rotated 360°/0° in the x, y and z axes. The ‘‘different’’ pairs may be mirror images or different figures. The angular disparity was counterbalanced for each of the axes,x,yandz.

Each figure in the pair was shown 5 cm in size on a 17-inch computer screen (placed 50 cm away from the participant) against a white background, using E-prime II (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA).

Participants gave their answers by pressing the ‘‘M’’ or

‘‘Z’’ keys on the keyboard for ‘‘Same’’ or ‘‘Different’’, respectively. The dependent variables were accuracy and response time. For the RTs in particular, the intercepts and slopes (of rotation) were calculated to better explain the type of training-related benefit on performance in the 3D task. The intercepts measure the increase in the speed of response during the sessions, while the slopes measure the improvement in the mental rotation process during the sessions (see Meneghetti et al.,2015; Wright et al.,2008).

The composition of the figures and the requirements of the task were similar for the training task and the criterion task.

Training task

In all, there were 810 pairs of figures used in the training sessions, reflecting combinations of 9 (base images)92 (white and white/grey)99 (angular disparity: 360°/0°, 40°, 80°, 120°, 160°200°, 240°, 280°)95 (sessions). For each training session, 162 pairs were used, 18 for each angular disparity, half of them the ‘‘same’’ and the other half ‘‘different’’. The latter were either mirror images or different figures, alternating across sessions between five mirror images plus four different figures and four mirror images plus five different figures.

Criterion task (pre-test, post-test and follow-up task) In the criterion task, there were 108 pairs used for pre-test and follow-up (Version A), and another 108 for post-test (Version B), each reflecting the combination of 69(base images)92 (white and white/grey)99 (angular disparity: 360/0°, 40°, 80°, 120°, 160°200°, 240°, 280°). Half of the 108 pairs in each version (6 for each angular disparity) were the ‘‘same’’, and the other half were ‘‘different’’

(mirror images or different figures).

Mental rotations test (MRT, Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978)

Each item consists of a 3D target figure (assembled cubes) and four possible matches, and respondents were asked to find which two figures were identical to the target but

rotated in space on the y axis. Two parallel versions comprising ten items each was drawn from the original Vandenberg & Kuse test (as in Meneghetti et al., 2015), with a time limit of 4 min for each version, and showed a good internal consistency (Version A, a =.87, and Ver- sion B, a=.89). Respondents were awarded one point when they correctly identified both of the figures matching the target. The total score (the dependent variable) was the sum of the correct answers (maximum=10).

Object Perspective Test (OPT, adapted from Kozhevnikov & Hegarty, 2001)

This task consists of a layout comprising six objects, and respondents were asked to imagine standing alongside one object, facing another, and pointing to a third. A circle was used to give their answers by drawing an arrow from the center of the circle (representing their own position) to the edge of the circle in the direction of the third object. Two parallel versions comprising six items each was drawn from the original Kozhevnikov and Hegarty task (as in Meneghetti et al.,2015), adopting a time limit of 2 min and 30 s for each version, and showed a good internal consistency (Version A, a =.85 and Version B, a=.87). The absolute error of the angles was calculated for each item in degrees of discrepancy between the correct angle and the one indicated by the respondent. The mean degrees of angular error was the dependent variable (maximum: 180).

Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT, scale 3;

Cattell,1973)

This test comprises four subsets. Subset 1 (Series) involves completing 13 incomplete series of abstract shapes by choosing which of six available options best completes the series. In Subset 2 (classifications) there are 14 problems in which respondents have to choose which two of five available abstract figures differ from the other three. Subset 3 (matrices) involves completing 13 matrices containing from 4 to 9 boxes of abstract figures by selecting the figure that correctly completes each matrix. In Subset 4 (conditions) respondents examine 10 items comprising a target figure consisting of geometrical figures, lines and a dot, plus five options from which to choose the item matching the target in the sense that it maintains the same relationship between the elements.

For each subset, we used two parallel versions with a total of 50 items in each version (that can each take from 2.5 to 4 min to complete, depending on the subtest), and the two versions showed an adequate internal consistency (Version A, a=0.68, and Version B, a =0.63; Cattell, 1973). The dependent variable was the number of items correctly answered across the four subsets (maximum: 50).

123

(16)

Strategy use measures

Assessment of strategy use in the training sessions For the S?MR group, we assessed participants’ use of rotation strategy by asking the following question: ‘‘How much are you using the strategy based on whole figure rotation introduced at the beginning of the session?’’. This question was asked in the middle and at the end of each session. Participants used a seven-point Likert scale (from 1=never to 7=always) to give their answers.

Questionnaire on strategy use in the 3D same/different (criterion) task

The questionnaire contains five items: two assessed non- spatial strategy use (‘‘I counted the cubes in the two figures’’; ‘‘I mentally rotated the two figures piece by piece to check the consistency between them’’); two assessed rotation strategy use (‘‘I mentally rotated the whole of the figure on the left of the screen to check whether it coincided with the one on the right’’; ‘‘I mentally rotated the figure on the right of the screen to check whether it coincided with the one on the left’’); and one assessed perspective-taking strategy use (‘‘I imagined moving around the figures to the right or left, visualizing how the shape would appear’’).

Questionnaire on strategy use in the MRT

This questionnaire contains five items, two assessing non- spatial strategy use (‘‘I counted the cubes forming the figures’’; ‘‘I mentally rotated the target figure piece by piece to see which of the options coincided’’), two items assessing rotation strategy use (‘‘I mentally rotated the whole target figure to identify which of the options it coincided with’’, ‘‘I mentally rotated the whole alternative figures to see which of them coincided with the target’’), and one item assessing perspective-taking strategy use (‘‘I imagined moving around the figures to the right or left, visualizing how the figure would appear’’).

Questionnaire on strategy use in the OPT

The questionnaire included six items measuring three types of strategy (based on Kozhevnikov & Hegarty,2001): two concern objects rotating (‘‘I mentally rotated the sheet of paper showing the layout of the objects’’; ‘‘I mentally rotated the objects in the layout’’); two concern perspective taking—subject rotating—(‘‘I mentally moved around within the layout’’, ‘‘I imagined being within the layout to visualize which direction the objects were in’’), and two concern angle estimating (‘‘I estimated the angle to identify

the direction’’, ‘‘I imagined a line linking the objects to estimate the direction’’).

A seven-point Likert scale (from 1=not at all to 7 =always) was used for each questionnaire. For the 3D same/different and MRT questionnaires, the mean scores were calculated for the items concerning non-spatial, rotation, and perspective-taking strategies. For the OPT questionnaire, the mean score was calculated for the items concerning object-rotating, subject-rotating, and angle-estimating strategies. In both cases, participants’ usage of each strategy was measured (from 1=not at all to 7=always).

Procedure

All participants attended the pre- and post-test, follow-up and training sessions in small groups (4–6 at a time). The pre- and post-test, and follow-up tasks (3D same/different criterion task, MRT, OPT, CFIT) and the versions (A or B) were administered in a counterbalanced order.

The MR and S?MR groups spent five training sessions completing the 3D same/different task for a total of 5 consecutive weeks, with one approximately 35-min session each week. The active control group was involved in other activities for a total of five sessions (lasting 35 min each) on the same days as the MR and S?MR groups’ sessions.

MR group

For each training session, the experimenter used Pow- erPoint presentations to provide information on the life of Roger Shepard (cofounder of the Kira Institute and faculty member at Stanford University), or about other colleagues of the author; then participants were given instruction on the training task, which involved comparing pairs of figures that could be the same or different.

S ?MR group

For each training session, the experimenter explained the requirements of the training task and participants were specifically taught to use a rotation strategy by means of a PowerPoint presentation. The experimenter presented four pairs of figures at each session (for a total of 20 items, ten same and ten different, over the five sessions) and instructed participants to imagine rotating one figure and comparing it with the other to see if the two represented the same figure in different positions. After allowing participants a few seconds to mentally rotate the figures, the experimenter showed the figures rotating: the figure on the right of the pair was gradually rotated through 40°until it reached the position where it coincided (in the case of

‘‘same’’ pairs) with the figure on the left. Then participants performed the 3D same/different task and, after completing Psychological Research

123

(17)

half of the items (81 pairs), and again after completing all of the items (162 pairs), they were asked to rate their usage of the previously-learned strategy by pressing the numbers from 1 to 7 on the keyboard.

At the end of each training session, participants in both groups were given feedback on the accuracy of their answers in the task and the average time it took them to respond for each item displayed on the PC screen.

Active control group

The active control group completed a questionnaire on their beliefs about their personality, then watched video lessons on personality psychology. In particular: they answered a personality beliefs questionnaire, calculated their scores and described their personality profiles (session 1); they watched video lessons about William James (session 2), Gordon Allport (session 3), and contemporary personality psychologists (sessions 4 and 5). Each video lasted 20 min, and was followed by participants answering questions about its content in small groups.

Table1shows a summary of the procedure and the tasks administered in each phase.

Results

Training-related gains in the tasks practiced (3D same/different training tasks)

For training sessions 1–5, the benefit in terms of response times (intercept, slope) and accuracy (proportion of correct answers) was examined using 2 (group: S?MR vs

MR)95 (session: 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5) ANOVAs. Using Bonferroni’s correction for multiple post hoc comparisons (when the interaction was significant), a p B.002 was considered significant.

The results are summarized in Table2 and descriptive statistics of the five training sessions for the S?MR and MR groups are given in Table3.

Accuracy

The results only showed a main effect of session: participants performed better at sessions 3, 4 and 5 than at sessions 1 and 2 (p from\.001 to\.002); the last three sessions did not differ from one another, while the first and second did (p=.03). No other significant differences were found.

Response times

InterceptThe results showed a main effect of session: participants became faster from one session to the next (p_sB.001), with no significant differences between sessions 3 and 4, or between sessions 4 and 5. The group 9session interaction was significant. The comparisons showed that participants in the S?MR group performed better at sessions 2, 3, 4 and 5 (with no differences between them) than at session 1 (p_sB.001), and at sessions 4 and 5 than at session 2 (psB.001). Participants in the MR group performed better from one session to the next (p_sfrom\.001 to .002), with no differences between sessions 4 and 5. The differences between the two groups were not significant.

Slope There was a main effect of session: participants had lower values at session 4 than at session 1 (p =.001),

Table 1 Description of the tasks used by each group in the training sessions

S?MR group MR group Active control group

Pre-test 3D same/different (criterion) task, MRT, OPT, CFIT, strategy questionnaires Training sessions

1 Rotation strategy instruction—3D same/different training task 1

3D same/different training task 1

Filling in questionnaires 2 Rotation strategy instruction—3D same/different training

task 2

Video lesson 3 Rotation strategy instruction—3D same/different training

task 3

task 4

task 5

Video lesson Post-test and follow-up 3D same/different (criterion) task, MRT, OPT, CFIT, strategy questionnaires

MRTMental Rotations Test,OPTObject Perspective Test,CFITCulture Fair Intelligence Test; the numbers alongside the name of the task indicate different versions

123

(18)

Table 2 Results of the mixed-design 393 ANOVA for the measures of interest, with group (S?MR group; MR group; active control group) as the between-participants factor, and session as repeated measures

F df g_p² p

Training task

3D same/different task Accuracy

Main effects G 1.49 1, 43 .03 .229

S 33.61 4, 172 .44 <.001

Interaction G9S 1.16 4, 172 .03 .328

Response times–intercept

Main effects G .43 1, 43 .01 .516

S 55.37 4, 172 .56 <.001

Interaction G9S 2.92 4, 172 .06 .023

Response times–slope

Main effects G 1.94 1, 43 .04 .170

S 13.02 4, 172 .23 <.001

Interaction G9S 1.14 4, 172 .03 .340

Pre- and post-test, and follow-up tasks 3D same/different (criterion) task

Accuracy

Main effects G 4.91 2, 69 .13 .010

S 94.58 2, 138 .58 <.001

Interaction G9S 11.47 4, 138 .25 <.001 Response times–intercept

Main effects G 5.59 2, 69 .14 .006

S 255.16 2, 138 .79 <.001

Interaction G9S 4.87 4, 138 .12 .001

Response times–slope

Main effects G 3.64 2, 69 .09 .032

S 20.78 2, 138 .23 <.001

Interaction G9S 0.97 4, 138 .03 .424

Mental Rotations Test

Main effects G 4.08 2, 69 .11 .021

S 63.76 2, 138 .48 <.001

Interaction G9S 7.54 4, 138 .18 <.001 Object Perspective Test

Main effects G 0.80 2, 69 .02 .451

S 2.62 2, 138 .04 .060

Interaction G9S 2.26 4, 138 .06 .066

Culture Fair Intelligence Test

Main effects G 1.79 2, 69 .05 .174

S 13.27 2, 138 .16 <.001

Interaction G9S 2.63 4, 138 .07 .037

Significantpvalues are in bold type

Ggroup, S session, G9S group9session; for the 3D same/different training task, the ‘‘session’’ variable means 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4 vs 5 sessions of training; for the pre- and post-test, and follow-up tasks, the ‘‘session’’ variable means pre-test vs post-test vs follow-up

Table3Means(M)andstandarddeviations(SD)ofaccuracyandresponsetimes(interceptinmillisecondsandslopevalues)forthe3Dsame/different(criterion)taskatpre-andpost-test,and follow-upfortheS?MR,MRandactivecontrolgroups,andforthe3Dsame/differenttrainingtaskusedinthefivesessionsfortheS?MRandMRgroups S?MRgroupMRgroupActivecontrolgroup AccuracyResponsetimeAccuracyResponsetimeAccuracyResponsetime InterceptsSlopesInterceptsSlopesInterceptsSlopes MSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSD Pre-test0.780.085801.531483.15731.30383.640.770.095486.861590.48822.91389.540.770.105588.822037.05846.14543.20 Session10.760.074082.661056.89957.73448.700.710.144272.881433.88840.83562.63 Session20.780.083441.21975.17737.57466.370.780.093587.51950.21778.57373.33 Session30.840.083069.44922.95763.21461.020.800.112957.981219.91526.02355.06 Session40.840.082863.87867.68644.35383.300.820.102290.04713.79493.35221.62 Session50.860.082556.61883.36510.75309.540.820.092128.79700.03404.35215.46 Post-test0.870.072394.90713.42490.46204.940.860.082222.49747.07434.14173.650.770.093698.20988.44685.08309.39 Follow-up0.910.092281.64679.90432.27256.940.890.102020.04621.83475.70263.430.820.082946.59749.81636.76364.53 Psychological Research

123

(19)

and at session 5 than at sessions 1 and 2 (p_sB.001). No other significant differences were found.

Strategy The S ?MR group rated their use of the rotation strategy they had learned as fairly intensive, both half-way through the training session (M 5.83; SD 0.68), and at the end (M 5.95; SD 0.69). Their ratings did not change across sessions, or between half-way through and at the end of a session (F_s\1).

Training gains measured at pre- and post-test, and follow-up

Baseline assessment

The three groups did not differ in any of the tasks at the pre-test session, in terms of their mean performance (for all tasks, F_s\1) or variance, as tested using Levene’s statistics (p values were not significant).

To identify any training-related gains, a 3 (group:

S?MR; MR; active control)93 (session: pre-test, post- test, follow-up), mixed-design ANOVA was run separately on all the measures of interest. The results are summarized in Table2. Using Bonferroni’s correction for multiple post hoc comparisons to break down the significant interactions, ap B.003 was considered significant.

Descriptive statistics are given in Table3 for the 3D same/different (criterion) task, and in Table4for the MRT, OPT, and CFIT.

3D same/different (criterion) task

Accuracy

The results showed main effects of both group and session.

The S?MR group outperformed the active control group (p=.004), while no significant differences emerged between the S?MR and MR groups, or between the MR and the active control groups. Participants performed better at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test, and they performed better at follow-up than at post-test (p_s\.001).

The group9session interaction was significant: the S?MR group performed better at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test, and at follow-up than at post-test (p_s\.001) (see descriptive statistics in Table3); the MR group performed better at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test (p\.001), with no difference between post-test and follow-up; and the active control group’s performance did not change significantly from pre-test to post-test, but they did perform better at follow-up than at pre-test or post- test (p_s\.001). The comparison between the groups showed that the S?MR and MR groups performed better than the active control group at post-test (p\.001), while only the S?MR group performed better than the active

control group at follow-up (p=.001). No other differences emerged between the groups.

Response times

Intercept The results showed main effects of group and session. The MR group was faster than the active control group (p=.005), while there were no significant differences between the S?MR and MR groups, or between the MR and the active control groups. Participants were faster at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test (p_s\.001), and participants were faster at follow-up than at post-test (p =.001). The group9session interaction was significant: participants in the S?MR and MR groups were faster at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test (p_s\.001), with no difference between post-test and follow-up (see Table3). The active control group responded faster at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test, and at follow-up than at post-test (p_s\.001). The comparison between the groups showed that the S?MR and MR groups were both faster than the active control group at post-test and at follow-up (p_s\.001). No other differences emerged between the groups.

SlopeThe results showed the main effects of both group and session. The S?MR group had lower values than the active control group (p=.044). There were no significant differences between the MR and active control, or between the S ?MR and MR groups. At post-test and follow-up, the values was lower than at pre-test, with no difference between the two (p_s\.001). The group9session interaction was not significant.

Mental Rotations Test

The results showed main effects of both group and session.

The S?MR group outperformed the active control group (p =.006), but there were no significant differences between the S?MR and MR groups, or between the MR and active control groups. Participants performed better at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test (p_s\.001), and at follow-up than at post-test (p=.038). The group9ses- sion interaction was significant: participants in the S?MR group performed better at post-test and follow-up (p\.001) than at pre-test, and at follow-up than at post- test (p\.001) (see Table4). Participants in the MR group performed better at post-test and follow-up than at pre-test (p\.001), with no difference between post-test and follow-up. The active control group’s performance did not change significantly between pre- and post-test, and follow-up. The comparison between the groups showed that the S?MR group performed better than the active control group at the follow-up (p\.001), while the MR and active control groups no longer differed. No other significant Psychological Research

123

(20)

differences were found between the groups, although the S?MR and MR groups had a post-test p=.007 and p=.008, respectively, by comparison with the active control group.

Object Perspective Test

The results showed a tendency towards a main effect of session (see Table2): participants tended to perform better at follow-up than at post-test, reducing the number of errors (p=.08). The group9session interaction tended towards significance (p =.06), the S?MR group tended to perform better (with fewer degrees of error) at follow-up than at pre-test (p =.005; using Bonferroni’s correction, thisp value can be assumed to indicate a tendency), with no significant difference between pre- and post-test, or between post-test and follow-up (see Table4). No other significant differences emerged between pre- and post-test, and follow-up, within or between the MR and active control groups.

Culture Fair Intelligence Test

The results showed main effects of session (see Table2):

participants performed better at post-test and follow-up (which did not differ from one another) than at pre-test (p_s\.001). The group9session interaction was significant: the S?MR group did better at post-test and follow- up (which did not differ from one another) than at pre-test (p_s\.001). No other significant differences emerged between pre- and post-test, and follow-up, within or between the MR and active control groups.

Effect size (Cohen’sd)

To gain a better understanding of the extent of the benefits of the training, Cohen’sd (1988) was applied to compute effect size on the within-subject data, using the methods proposed by Morris and DeShon (2002). Both short-term benefits (emerging from the comparison between pre- and post-test scores, see Fig. 1), and maintenance gains (comparing pre-test with follow-up scores, see Fig.2) were considered.

A large effect size of the short-term gains was found for the S?MR and MR groups, and a small one for the active control group, in terms of accuracy in the 3D same/different (criterion) task and the MRT. For the short-term gains in the CFIT test, only the S?MR group showed a large effect size, while small effect sizes were seen for the active control and MR groups. In the OPT, the short-term gains were small for all three groups.

When maintenance gains were analyzed, large effect sizes were found for the S?MR and MR groups in terms Table4Means(M)andstandarddeviations(SD)ofthemeasuresofinterestatpre-andpost-test,andfollow-up,fortheS?MR,MRandactivecontrolgroups S?MRgroupMRgroupActivecontrolgroup Pre-testPost-testFollow-upPre-testPost-testFollow-upPre-testPost-testFollow-up MSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSD MentalRotationsTest3.921.695.922.147.211.863.332.265.871.735.832.433.791.984.421.674.711.65 ObjectPerspectiveTest25.5312.3823.2214.7814.8916.5223.3715.5423.2215.7523.9410.9122.6715.2529.7619.8023.2612.54 CultureFairIntelligenceTest26.714.3930.464.3430.384.4326.174.0928.134.4928.083.5927.173.5127.884.5727.544.46