ArticleCognitive processing2022
The practice of speleology: What is its relationship with spatial abilities?
Article in Cognitive processing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the evidence of motor and exploring activities being related to spatial abilities on different scales, the present study considers the case of speleology, a peculiar underground exploratory activity. The relation of this practice with spatial abilities was examined. The study compares a group of expert speleologists (18), a group with a reduced amount of experience in speleology (19 novice speleologists), and a group with a similar amount of practice but in the outdoors (19 experts mountaineers). Group differences will be investigated in terms of (i) small-scale spatial task performance (rotation-based and spatial working memory); (ii) large-scale environment learning (reproduced using verbal descriptions) asking participants to learn a path through a cave or up a mountain (in a counterbalanced order) and then to test their recall with true/false spatial questions and graphical representation tasks; and (iii) self-reports of wayfinding attitudes. The results of linear models showed that, after controlling for age, gender, years of education, and vocabulary scores, expert speleologists had greater mental rotation and perspective-taking abilities and less spatial anxiety than expert mountaineers, and the former performed the true/false questions better than the latter. It should be noted that participants who reported having guiding/path-finding experiences had greater accuracy in graphical representation performance and higher scores in attitude towards orientation. Overall, expertise in speleology is related to spatial abilities on different scales and might have a distinctive role in comparison with other motor practices, pointing to the potential value of examining speleology in the spatial cognition framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.