Search Results (2)

Action imagery describes a mental representation of an action and its consequences. Although it is widely recognized that people differ in their ability to imagine actions, objective validated tests to measure such differences are scarce. In search of an objective testing method for action imagery ability, the present study investigated whether solving mental paper-folding tasks involves action imagery. The stimuli were two-dimensional grids of six squares. A total of 99 participants mentally folded each grid into a three-dimensional cube to judge whether two highlighted lines in the grid overlapped in the imagined cube. This was done in two sessions of 214 judgements each, where the grids differed in overlaps, the least number of imagined folds, and the least number of imagined directional changes. Error rates and reaction times increased with the number of imagined folds and with the number of directional changes. Furthermore, more errors were committed with overlapping lines than with no overlaps. This was not reflected in the reaction times. Hence, the reaction times increased when the stepwise folding process was enlarged, but not when the final selection was more difficult. We concluded that the participants predominantly used action imagery as a task-solving strategy rather than for abstract problem-solving. Full article

Action imagery involves the mental representation of an action without overt execution, and can contribute to perspective taking, such as that required for left-right judgments in mental body rotation tasks. It has been shown that perspective (back view, front view), rotational angle (head-up, head-down), and abstractness (abstract, realistic) of the stimulus material influences speed and correctness of the judgement. The present studies investigated whether left-right judgements are more difficult on legs than on arms and whether the type of limb interacts with the other factors. Furthermore, a combined score for speed and accuracy was explored to eliminate possible tradeoffs and to obtain the best possible measure of subjects’ individual ability. Study 1 revealed that the front view is more difficult than the back view because it involves a vertical rotation in perspective taking. Head-down rotations are more difficult than head-up rotations because they involve a horizontal rotation in perspective taking. Furthermore, leg stimuli are more difficult than hand stimuli, particularly in head-down rotations. In Study 2, these findings were replicated in abstract stimuli as well as in realistic stimuli. In addition, perspective taking for realistic stimuli in the back view is easier than realistic stimuli in the front view or abstract stimuli (in both perspectives). We conclude that realistic stimulus material facilitates task comprehension and amplifies the effects of perspective. By replicating previous findings, the linear speed-accuracy score was shown to be a valid measure to capture performance in mental body rotations. Full article