{"title":"Picking up the pieces: Sex differences in mechanisms of curve tracing.","authors":"Willem Millett, Daniel Voyer","doi":"10.1037/cep0000265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined potential sex differences in the application of models of curve tracing, namely the pixel-by-pixel model, the bipartite model, and the zoom lens model. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine whether sex differences existed in terms of reliance on a particular model or whether the results of each sex could be best explained by one model. This was done by examining the combined data obtained by Voyer and MacPherson (2020), consisting of 420 participants, with 194 men and 226 women. We examined only the curve-tracing task data from that study and compared the fit of the different models as well as a possible interaction with sex of participants on the proportion of correct responses and response time. Overall, sex was a significant factor, with men showing better average accuracy and faster performance than women. On accuracy, we found that the pixel-by-pixel model provided the best fit for women, whereas the zoom lens model produced the best fit for men. On response time, the zoom model was the best predictor of response time for both sexes. The discussion elaborates on an account of these findings and on how our results might generalize to other visual-spatial tasks where a performance advantage for men is found. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51529,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000265","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study examined potential sex differences in the application of models of curve tracing, namely the pixel-by-pixel model, the bipartite model, and the zoom lens model. The purpose of this study was therefore to determine whether sex differences existed in terms of reliance on a particular model or whether the results of each sex could be best explained by one model. This was done by examining the combined data obtained by Voyer and MacPherson (2020), consisting of 420 participants, with 194 men and 226 women. We examined only the curve-tracing task data from that study and compared the fit of the different models as well as a possible interaction with sex of participants on the proportion of correct responses and response time. Overall, sex was a significant factor, with men showing better average accuracy and faster performance than women. On accuracy, we found that the pixel-by-pixel model provided the best fit for women, whereas the zoom lens model produced the best fit for men. On response time, the zoom model was the best predictor of response time for both sexes. The discussion elaborates on an account of these findings and on how our results might generalize to other visual-spatial tasks where a performance advantage for men is found. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology publishes original research papers that advance understanding of the field of experimental psychology, broadly considered. This includes, but is not restricted to, cognition, perception, motor performance, attention, memory, learning, language, decision making, development, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. The journal publishes - papers reporting empirical results that advance knowledge in a particular research area; - papers describing theoretical, methodological, or conceptual advances that are relevant to the interpretation of empirical evidence in the field; - brief reports (less than 2,500 words for the main text) that describe new results or analyses with clear theoretical or methodological import.