Measure of Spatial Orientation Ability

Abstract

The aim of this study was to design a test to measure a person’s ability to orient themselves on a “you are-here” map. The Spatial Orientation Skills Test, a test measuring spatial orientation ability, consists of 30 items, each item contains two maps, one is positioned at 0° (the model), and the other is the same map but amplified and rotated. The task participants were required to perform was to find their way around on the model map to get to a specific point by taking as a reference point the position indicated on the amplified and rotated map. A sample of 281 university undergraduates participated in the study. The test obtained a Cronbach alpha of .83. The test was significantly correlated to the test measuring image rotation. The results are discussed, and new lines of research are proposed.

Keywords

spatial orientation test image rotation reliability validity

The ubiquitous “you-are-here maps” are a specific type of map found in most cities fixed to a pedestal, with the “you-are-here” symbol indicating the position of the map in relation to the real surroundings, which allows viewers to locate their exact position on the map and orient themselves to plan their routes. In the design of “you-are-here” maps, two principles are essential: the principle of orientation and principle of structure matching (Campos & Campos-Juanatey, 2017; Campos-Juanatey, 2016; Levine, 1982). The principle of orientation refers to the alignment of the map with the surroundings. A map is aligned with its surroundings when it is equivalent to “forward-up,” that is, when what is represented in the upper part of the map corresponds to what the viewer has in front, what is represented to the right of the map is what the viewer has to the right in reality, what is on the left on the map is what the viewer has to left in reality, and what is at the lowest part of the map is what the viewer has behind (Aretz, 1991; Campos-Juanatey, 2016; Tlauka & Nairn, 2004).

If the map maintains the intrinsic coordinates of the user (in front, behind, right, left), it is considered to be aligned with its surroundings, but if the map orientation fails to coincide with reality, it is considered to be misaligned, and this misalignment can range from 1° to 180° (Campos-Juanatey, 2016; Montello, 2010; Sadalla & Montello, 1989). Misaligned maps are much harder to comprehend when compared with aligned maps, taking longer to understand, and lead to more errors (Aubrey, Li, & Dobbs, 1994; Campos & Campos-Juanatey, 2017; Campos-Juanatey, 2016; Levine, Marchon, & Hanley, 1984).

The second principle, structural matching or correspondence, refers to the map providing a minimum of information for orienting the viewer and to establish quickly and easily a link between the map and the surroundings. The minimum requirement is for the map to have two elements that are easily observable in reality, to enable the information from the map to be translated to the real world (Campos & Campos-Juanatey, 2017; Campos-Juanatey, 2016; Levine, 1982). If the user is represented by a point and by the panel with a line, the two points needed to match the map with reality are established (Klippel, Freksa, & Winter, 2006).

Manual maps are misaligned and must be aligned before they can orient the user. To correct the misalignment, the map can be rotated, the user’s body can be rotated, or both the user’s body and the map can be rotated together, but the fixed panels of “you-are-here” maps cannot be rotated, so the only way of aligning is to mentally rotate the map by using mental imagery (Campos & Campos-Juanatey, 2017; Levine, Jankovic, & Palij, 1982).

The first image rotation studies were undertaken by Shepard and coworkers (Cooper & Shepard, 1973; Shepard & Metzler, 1971). Research on image rotation consisted in presenting a figure or letter at different degrees of rotation, and subjects had to determine if it corresponded to the previously presented model. Subjects had to determine if the letters were in the correct position by rotating them on their axis without lifting them up. These authors found the more the letter was rotated toward 180°, the longer it took to determine if it was in the correct position or inverted. The explanation given by the authors was that individuals had to rotate the figures mentally until they were in the 0° position; thus, the greater the distance from zero, the longer it took to rotate (Cooper, 1975; Cooper & Shepard, 1973; Shepard & Metzler, 1971).

Several test have been designed to measure an individual’s ability to rotate mental imagery such as the Card Rotation Test (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976), the Cube Comparison Test (Ekstrom et al., 1976), the Spatial Relations Test (Thurstone & Thurstone,1962/2002), and the Mental Rotation Test (MRT; Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978). More recently, Campos (2012) developed the Measure of the Ability to Rotate Mental Images (MARMI). In general, these tests have high reliability: The Card Rotation Test has a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 (Burton & Fogarty, 2003), and the Cube Comparison Test has an alpha of .80 (Burton & Fogarty, 2003). Thurstone and Thurstone (1962/2002) obtained a test–retest reliability of .73 in the Spatial Relations Test. Vandenberg and Kuse (1978) found the MRT had a Kuder–Richardson of .88 and a test–retest reliability of .83. Campos (2012) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 in the MARMI.

In general, image rotation tests are highly correlated to tests measuring mental rotation (Burton & Fogarty, 2003; Campos, 2009). The Card Rotation Test correlated .58 with the Cube Comparison Test and .77 with the Spatial Relations Test (Burton & Fogarty, 2003). Campos (2012) found the MARMI correlated .38 with the Spatial Relations Test and .40 with the MRT. The Spatial Relations Test correlated .48 with the MRT.

The correlations between the scores obtained in the image rotation test and the image vividness test were very low. Campos (2009) found a correlation of .13 between the Spatial Relations Test and the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire-Revised Version (VVIQ-2; Marks, 1995), and Blazhenkova and Kozhevnikov (2009) found a correlation of –.03 between the MRT and the VVIQ. In 2013, Campos found the VVIQ-2 correlated .05 with the Spatial Relations Test, .04 with the MRT, and .10 with the MARMI.

There is a broad consistency in the results obtained in several studies examining gender differences in image rotation, with almost all studies indicating men obtained significantly higher scores than women in image rotation tasks (Campos-Juanatey, Pérez-Fabello, & Campos, 2018; Campos, Pérez-Fabello, & Gómez-Juncal, 2004; Delgado & Prieto,1996; Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Linn & Petersen, 1985, 1986; Voyer, 2011; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995). A host of causes have been attributed to explain gender differences such as the different strategies used by men and women (Linn & Petersen, 1985), hormonal changes (Hooven, Chabris, Ellison, & Kosslyn, 2004; Kimura, 1999; Sanders, Sjodin, & de Chastelaine, 2002), and socialization factors (Campos, 2014; Oosthuizen, 1991).

The aim of the present study was to design a measure of spatial orientation skills and to assess its reliability and validity. This study is innovative in that, to our knowledge, there are no orientation test where individuals have to perform image rotation before orientating themselves, as is the case of “you-are-here” maps, and there are no tests as real life as the one proposed in this study.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 281 undergraduates from the Faculty of Psychology of the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain (97 men and 184 women, mean age = 19.75 years (SD = 1.61), and range = 18 to 25 years).

Instruments

The following instruments were used: the Spanish version of the Spatial Orientation Skills Test (SOST), the Spanish translation of the Measure of the Ability to Form Spatial Mental Imagery (MASMI; Campos, 2009, 2013), the MRT (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978), the Spanish version (Campos & Pérez-Fabello, 2011) of the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire (OSIVQ, Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009), and the Spanish version (Campos, González, & Amor, 2002) of the VVIQ (Marks, 1973).

A new spatial orientation test was designed, the SOST, which consisted of 30 items, each item containing two maps, one in 0° position (the model) and the other in varying positions. Ten pairs differed by 0° in relation to the model, 10 differed by 90°, and 10 differed by 180°. On the map on the left (the model), a point represents the position of the user “you are here,” and on the map on the right, a line indicates the situation on the panel (see Figure 1). Both the viewer and the panel are located in a street on the map. The map on the right is the same as the map on the left, but it has been amplified and rotated. The task requires individuals to find their way on the map on the left to reach a point indicated in black on the same map but using as a reference point the position of the user and the panel on the map on the right. Each item has four responses, that is, the participant has to go: forwards, backwards, to the left, or to the right. Participants were allowed 2 minutes to complete the test. Scoring for each item ranged from 1 for a correct response, –1 for an incorrect response, and 0 points for an unanswered question; thus, the score on the test ranged from 30 to –30. The test is available in English and Spanish from ResearchGate or PsycTESTS (Database of the American Psychological Association).

Figure 1.

Example of a training item to complete the Spatial Orientation Skills Test.

The MRT (Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978)

This test consists of 10 items, each item is a 3-D geometric figure formed by small cubes. Each item has a criterion figure and two correct and two incorrect responses. The task requires participants to rotate figures to determine if they were the same as the criterion figure. For correction, Vandenberg and Kuse recommend awarding two points for two correct responses for each item, one point for one correct response and zero for all other responses. Participants were allowed 3 minutes to complete the test. Pérez-Fabello, Campos, and Felisberti (2018) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .92.

The MASMI (Campos, 2009, 2013)

This test consists of an unfolded cube that participants must close mentally before responding to the 23 questions on the test. Each question has four responses, two true and two false. The total score is calculated by adding the correct responses and subtracting the incorrect responses, with total test score ranging from 46 to –46. Participants were allowed 5 minutes to respond to all of the questions on the test. Campos (2009) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .93.

The OSIVQ (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009)

This is a questionnaire with 45 items, 15 for each of the three subscales: verbal, object, and spatial. Each item is scored on 5-point scale, where 5 indicates you absolutely agree the statement describes you, and 1 indicates you totally disagree with the statement. The questionnaire has no time limit. Campos and Pérez-Fabello (2011) obtained Cronbach’s alphas of .77, .81, and .72 for the Object imagery, Spatial imagery, and Verbal scales, respectively.

The VVIQ (Marks, 1973)

The Spanish version of the test was used (Campos et al., 2002). This questionnaire consists of 16 items that are completed twice, the first with eyes open and the second with eyes shut. The score for each item ranges from 1 (image perfectly clear and as vivid as the actual experience) to 5 (no image present at all; you only know that you are thinking of the object). Campos et al. (2002) obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of .88.

Procedure

The tests were administered in groups of approximately 20 undergraduates in their usual classrooms. The instructions for each test were read aloud. All participants freely volunteered to complete the tests and received no compensation for their participation. The order of presentation of the tests was counterbalanced to avoid bias, and participants were assured their data would remain anonymous and confidential according to the Spanish Data Protection Laws. The study complied with ethical norms of the Helsinki Declaration of 2013 and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Santiago de Compostela.

Data Analysis

All data analysis was performed using the statistical software package SPSS 24. The internal consistency of the SOST was determined by the Cronbach’s alpha. To analyze significant differences between the scores obtained for men and women, a Student’s t test was performed. Finally, the Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to correlate the SOST to other image rotation tests and to correlate the tests among themselves.

Results

The first step was to analyze the internal consistency of the SOST, and a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 was obtained. The Cronbach’s alphas of the other tests were MRT = .82, MASMI = .84, OSIVQ spatial = .81, OSIVQ object = .79, OSIVQ verbal = .72, and VVIQ = .88. The SOST correlations with the other test are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations Between the SOST and the Measures of Imagery.

	SOST	MASMI	MRT	OSIVQ object	OSIVQ spatial	OSIVQ verbal
MASMI	.35**
MRT	.42**	.42**
OSIVQ object	.06	–.06	–.04
OSIVQ spatial	.30**	.38**	.42**	–.13*
OSIVQ verbal	.03	–.09	.05	.02	–.09
VVIQ	–.09	–.02	–.09	–.35	.02	–.12*

Note. SOST = Spatial Orientation Skills Test; MASMI = Measure of the Ability to Form Spatial Mental Imagery; MRT = Mental Rotation Test; OSIVQ = Objet-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire; VVIQ = Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

The gender difference between the scores of women (M = 6.13, SD = 5.81) and men (M = 9.99, SD = 7.13) on the SOST were significant, t(279) = 4.89, p < .001; men obtained significantly higher orientation scores with the “you-are-here” maps than women.

Discussion

In this study, the SOST obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of (.83), showing the test had “good” internal consistency according to the classification of George and Mallery (2003). The internal consistency obtained in the other tests under analysis ranged from “acceptable” obtained by the OSIVQ verbal (.72) to “good” obtained by the other tests. The orientation score obtained for “you-are-here” maps was significantly higher in men than women. We conjecture this difference was due to map rotation being required prior to orientation, which would coincide with the results obtained in image rotation tasks (Campos et al., 2004; Campos-Juanatey et al., 2018; Delgado & Prieto,1996; Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Linn & Petersen, 1985, 1986; Voyer, 2011; Voyer et al., 1995).

The SOST was correlated to the other tests measuring image rotation, and highly significant correlations (p < .001) were found, whereas a negligible correlation was observed between the SOST and the other tests measuring image vividness and verbal processing. This result agreed with the findings of other studies (Blazhenkova & Kozhevnikov, 2009; Burton & Fogarty, 2003; Campos, 2009, 2012, 2013) and corroborated these studies in that the rotation tests were correlated among themselves and the rotation tests correlated to tests with no rotation.

Hence, we contend that both the reliability and validity of the SOST and its ability to discriminate between women and men demonstrate the test is a good instrument for measuring spatial orientation in “you-are-here” maps when they are misaligned. Further research is required to analyze the relationship between the SOST and other tests and to analyze orientation ability at different ages and professions, particularly because this test may have an array of applications in several fields besides research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Alfredo Campos

Diego Campos-Juanatey

Author Biographies

Alfredo Campos is professor of Psychology, and develops his research on mental imagery.

Diego Campos-Juanatey holds a doctorate in Architecture. Currently he works as an architect and develops his research on image rotation and “you-are-here” maps.

References

Aretz

A. J.

(1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101. doi:10.1177/001872089103300107

Aubrey

J. F.

K. Z. H.

Dobbs

A. R.

(1994). Age differences in the interpretation of misaligned “you-are-here” maps. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 49, 29–31. doi:10.1093/geronj/49.1.p29

Blazhenkova

Kozhevnikov

(2009). The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 638–663. doi:10.1002/acp.1473

Burton

L. J.

Fogarty

G. J.

(2003). The factor structure of visual imagery and spatial abilities. Intelligence, 31, 289–318. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00139-3

Campos

(2009). Spatial imagery: A new measure of the visualization factor. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 29, 31–39. doi:10.2190/IC.29.1.c

Campos

(2012). Measure of the ability to rotate mental images. Psicothema, 24, 431–434. doi:10.1037/t14408-000

Campos

(2013). Reliability and percentiles of a measure of spatial imagery. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 32, 427–431. doi:10.2190/IC.32.e.f

Campos

(2014). Gender differences in imagery. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 107–111. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.10

Campos

Campos-Juanatey

(2017). Importancia de la rotción de imágenes para la comprensión de los “you-are-here maps” [Importance of rotating images for the understanding of you-are-here maps]. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 1, A1-020-023. doi:10.17979/reipe.2017.0.01.2149

10.

Campos

González

M. A.

Amor

(2002). The Spanish version of the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire: Factor structure and internal consistency reliability. Psychological Reports, 90, 503–506. doi:10.2466/PR0.90.2.503-506

11.

Campos

Pérez-Fabello

M. J.

(2011). Factor structure of the Spanish version of the Object-Spatial Imagery and Verbal Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 108, 470–476. doi:10.2466/04.22.PMS.113.5.454-460

12.

Campos

Pérez-Fabello

M. J.

Gómez-Juncal

(2004). Gender and age differences in measured and self-perceived imaging capacity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1383–1389. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.008

13.

Campos-Juanatey

(2016). Diseño de mapas you-are-here [Design of you-are-here maps]. A Coruña, Spain: Andavira Editora.

14.

Campos-Juanatey

Pérez-Fabello

M. J.

Campos

(2018). Differences in image rotation between undergraduates from different university degrees. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 38, 173–185. doi:10.1177/0276236617748131

15.

Cooper

L. A.

(1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 20–43. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90003-1

16.

Cooper

L. A.

Shepard

R. N.

(1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In Chase

W. G.

(Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 75–176). New York, NY: Academic Press.

17.

Delgado

A. R.

Prieto

(1996). Sex differences in visuospatial ability: Do performance factors play such an important role? Memory & Cognition, 24, 504–510. doi:10.3758/BF03200938

18.

Ekstrom

R. B.

French

J. W.

Harman

H. H.

Dermen

(1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

19.

George

Mallery

(2003). SPSS for windows steps by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

20.

Hedges

L. V.

Nowell

(1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269, 41–45. doi:10.1126/science.7604277

21.

Hooven

C. L.

Chabris

C. F.

Ellison

P. T.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(2004). The relationship of male testosterone to components of mental rotation. Neuropsychologia, 42, 782–790. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.11.012

22.

Kimura

(1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

23.

Klippel

Freksa

Winter

(2006). You-are-here maps in emergencies – The danger of getting lost. Journal of Spatial Sciences, 51, 117–131. doi:10.1080/14498596.2006.9635068

24.

Levine

(1982). You-are-here maps: Psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 13, 221–237. doi:10.1177/0013916584142006

25.

Levine

Jankovic

I. N.

Palij

(1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 111, 157–175. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.1

26.

Levine

Marchon

Hanley

(1984). The placement and misplacement of you-are-here maps. Environment and Behavior, 16, 139–157. doi:10.1177/00139165844162001

27.

Linn

M. C.

Petersen

A. C.

(1985). Emergence and characterisation of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00213.x

28.

Linn

M. C.

Petersen

A. C.

(1986). Gender differences in spatial ability: Implications for mathematics and science performance. In Hyde

Linn

M. C.

(Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advance through meta-analysis (pp. 67–101). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

29.

Marks

D. F.

(1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17–24. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x

30.

Marks

D. F.

(1995). New directions for mental imagery research. Journal of Mental Imagery, 19, 135–149.

31.

Montello

D. R.

(2010). You-are where? The function and frustration of you-are-here (YAH) maps. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10, 94–104. doi:10.1080/13875860903585323

32.

Oosthuizen

(1991). Sex-related differences in spatial ability in a group of South African students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 51–54. doi:10.2466/pms.1991.73.1.51

33.

Pérez-Fabello

M. J.

Campos

Felisberti

F. M.

(2018). Object-spatial imagery in fine arts, psychology, and engineering. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27, 131–138. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.005

34.

Sadalla

E. K.

Montello

D. R.

(1989). Remembering changes in direction. Environment and Behavior, 21, 346–363. doi:10.1177/0013916589213006

35.

Sanders

Sjodin

de Chastelaine

(2002). On the elusive nature of sex differences in cognition: Hormonal influences contributing to within-sex variation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 145–152. doi:10.1023/A:1014095521499

36.

Shepard

R. N.

Metzler

(1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703. doi:10.1126/science.171.3972.701

37.

Tlauka

Nairn

M. J.

(2004). Encoding of multiple map orientations. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 4, 359–372. doi:10.1207/s15427633scc0404_4

38.

Thurstone

L. L.

Thurstone

T. G.

(1962/2002). Aptitudes mentales primarias [Primary mental abilities]. Madrid, Spain: TEA Ediciones.

39.

Vandenberg

S. G.

Kuse

A. R.

(1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604. doi:10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599

40.

Voyer

(2011). Time limits and gender differences on paper-and-pencil tests of mental rotation: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 267–277. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0042-0

41.

Voyer

Bryden

M. P.

(1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250