ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2025
Developing a novel measure of non-rigid, ductile spatial skill.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-rigid spatial thinking, or mental transformations where the distance between two points in an object changes (e.g., folding, breaking, bending), is required for many STEM fields but remains critically understudied. We developed and tested a non-rigid, ductile spatial skill measure based on reasoning about knots with 279 US adults (M = 30.90, SD 5.47 years; 76% White; 48% women). The resultant 54-item measure had good reliability (α = .88). Next, 147 US adults (M = 20.65, SD 2.80 years; 48% White; 56% women) completed existing spatial skills measures, the knot reasoning measure, a verbal skill measure, and surveys of current and childhood spatial activities. Knot reasoning performance was significantly, positively correlated with existing measures of spatial skill. Mental rotation and paper folding, but not bending, predicted knot reasoning task performance. We replicated work showing that men performed better than women on mental rotation and unexpectedly found that men also outperformed women on paper folding and knot reasoning, but not bending, tasks. Using structural equation modeling, we found several significant mediation effects. Men who reported less masculine-stereotyped spatial activity engagement had higher performance on the mental rotation and knot reasoning tasks. Women who reported greater engagement in feminine-stereotyped spatial activities had higher paper folding and backwards knot reasoning performance. Spatial skills did not differ among math-intensive STEM, non-math-intensive STEM, and non-STEM majors. The studies introduce a reliable measure of non-rigid, ductile string transformations and provide initial evidence of the role of gender and gendered spatial activities on non-rigid spatial skills.
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.