Valeria Occelli, Jonathan B. Lin, Simon Lacey, K. Sathian
Abstract
Previous studies have reported inconsistent results when comparing spatial imagery performance in the blind and the sighted, with some, but not all, studies demonstrating deficits in the blind. Here, we investigated the effect of visual status and individual preferences ("cognitive style") on performance of a spatial imagery task. Participants with blindness resulting in the loss of form vision at or after age 6, and age- and gender-matched sighted participants, performed a spatial imagery task requiring memorization of a 4 × 4 lettered matrix and subsequent mental construction of shapes within the matrix from four-letter auditory cues. They also completed the Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (SBSoDS) and a self-evaluation of cognitive style. The sighted participants also completed the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ). Visual status affected performance on the spatial imagery task: the blind performed significantly worse than the sighted, independently of the age at which form vision was completely lost. Visual status did not affect the distribution of preferences based on self-reported cognitive style. Across all participants, self-reported verbalizer scores were significantly negatively correlated with accuracy on the spatial imagery task. There was a positive correlation between the SBSoDS score and accuracy on the spatial imagery task, across all participants, indicating that a better sense of direction is related to a more proficient spatial representation and that the imagery task indexes ecologically relevant spatial abilities. Moreover, the older the participants were, the worse their performance was, indicating a detrimental effect of age on spatial imagery performance. Thus, spatial skills represent an important target for rehabilitative approaches to visual impairment, and individual differences, which can modulate performance, should be taken into account in such approaches.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 May 2014.
All research outputs
#13,172,003
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,840
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,687
of 223,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#84
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 223,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
