Individual Differences in Spatial Abilities

By Mary Hegarty, David Waller. 2005

626 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Automotive Engineering, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Geography, Planning and Development

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3080ea9f54a9b3fb1d2abf70c614dbfee1462b9f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Automotive Engineering

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

In Geography, Planning and Development

Citations in the corpus

The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. (2013, background): “Since a century of research on these topics has not led to a clear consensus regarding the definition and subcomponents of spatial ability, a new approach is clearly needed (Hegarty & Waller, 2005; Newcombe & Shipley, in press).”
Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning (2006, background): “…Colom, & Fernandez-Truchaud, 2000; Kirasic, 2000; Lorenz, 1988; Meld, 1985; Pearson & Ialongo, 1986; Rovine & Weisman, 1989; Sholl, 1988; Waller, 2000; Walsh, Krauss, & Regnier, 1981), Hegarty and Waller (2005) reported that there were only two studies in which the median correlation exceeded .3.”
Spatial Thinking and STEM Education. When, Why, and How? (2012, background): “Theoretical analyses, based on the cognitive processes that are involved, have proved somewhat more promising, although there is still no consensus as to what does and does not count as spatial thinking (Hegarty & Waller, 2005).”
On the Development and Measurement of Spatial Ability. (2009, background): “Second, those studies neglect dynamic spatial abilities and environmental abilities, which are considered as very important components of spatial ability domain (Hegarty and Waller, 2005).”
Think3d!: Training Spatial Thinking Fundamental to STEM Education (2013, background): “While researchers have not always agreed on how to categorize different aspects of visuospatial thinking (Hegarty & Waller, 2005), Newcombe and Shipley (in press) have proposed a useful spatial thinking typology based on two dichotomous factors, intrinsic/extrinsic and static/dynamic.”
Components of Spatial Intelligence (2010, neutral): “Although there are dozens of published tests of spatial ability (Eliot & Smith, 1983), there was no systematic attempt to first identify the basic components of spatial intelligence and develop tests that measured each one (Hegarty & Waller, 2006).”
Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability (2010, methodology): “The Vz factor is composed of three first-order factors that correspond to the abilities defined by the Form-Board, the Paper-Folding and the Surface-Development tests (Ekstrom, French & Harmon, 1976; Hegarty and Waller, 2005).”
Effects of Integrating Physical Activities Into a Science Lesson on Preschool Children's Learning and Enjoyment (2017, positive): “…of physical experience and linking knowledge to real-world examples during science learning is emphasised for improving spatial abilities (Hegarty & Waller, 2005), the construction of mental representations and richer cognitive schemas, memory encoding, retention and retrieval, and learning (Madan…”
The Influence of Spatial Visualization Training on Students’ Spatial Reasoning and Mathematics Performance (2019, background): “Mental rotation is a specific type of object-based transformation, often separated in factor analytic studies from measures of spatial visualization (Hegarty & Waller, 2005; Mix & Cheng, 2012).”