1 / 7

Variations in Map-Reading Performance Efficiency

Variations in Map-Reading Performance Efficiency. Rick Bunch, University of North Carolina Greensboro Robert Earl Lloyd, University of South Carolina. Purpose and Problem.

ayasha
Download Presentation

Variations in Map-Reading Performance Efficiency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Variations in Map-Reading Performance Efficiency Rick Bunch, University of North Carolina Greensboro Robert Earl Lloyd, University of South Carolina

  2. Purpose and Problem • Measure the performance efficiency of participants as they engage in map-reading tasks that require the processing of geographic information • To identify the relationships between top-down and bottom-up processes related to searching and recalling geographic information

  3. Performance • Accuracy and reaction times are frequently used as measures of success (performance efficiency) in cognitive experiments • This study examine three factors that could influence performance: gender, memory, and brain asymmetry

  4. Task • Data Gather Steps • Measure second and fourth digits • Bem Sex Role Inventory • Spatial Working Memory Span Test (Computerized version of the Corsi Block Task) • Verbal Working Memory Span Test • Experiment • Participants were randomly presented with state names for the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. and asked to identify each state on an unlabeled map

  5. Variables

  6. Selected Results F = 17.3, P > F = 0.000 F = 5.8, P > F = 0.016 F = 15.5, P > F = 0.000 F = 0.6, P > F = 0.446

  7. Conclusions • Gender revealed interesting differences • Participants with high spatial AND Verbal scores had better performance • 2D/4D ratio had mixed results • Area of the state and distance from home state impacted performance

More Related