Title | Three-dimensioinal spatial skill training in a simulated space station: random vs. blocked designs |
Publication Type | Journal Article |
Year of Publication | 2006 |
Authors | Shebilske, W., T. Tubre, A. H. Tubre, C. M. Oman, and J. T. Richards |
Journal | Aviat Space Environ Med |
Volume | 77 |
Pagination | 404-409 |
MVL Report Number | 06.15 |
Abstract | Astronauts floating inside a spacecraft must be able torecall the direction to surrounding visual landmarks, regardless of theirviewing perspective. If 3D orientation skills are taught preflight, shouldperspective sequences be blocked or randomized? Can standard spatialskill tests predict performance? Methods: Undergraduates (40 men and40 women; ages 19–24) learned 3D spatial relationships among landmarkpictures in a cubic chamber simulating a space station node.Subjects learned to predict picture directions when told one picture’sdirection (the one behind them) and the subject’s simulated roll orientation,which was changed between trials by rotating pictures. Thedependent variable was the proportion of correct predictions. A betweengroup (n 40 per group) independent variable was training type(random vs. blocked sequencing of perspectives). Experiment phase(familiarization, training, transfer, and 2 retention phases) was a withingroup variable. Subjects also took three standard spatial skill tests: CardRotation, Cube Comparison, and Group Imbedded Figures. Results: Ashypothesized, during training, performance for the random group (0.56)was worse than the blocked group (0.83); during transfer, the randomgroup (0.75) was better than the blocked group (0.56); during retention-1, the random group (0.70) was better than the blocked group(0.55); and during retention-2, the random group (0.76) was better thanthe blocked group (0.65). Spatial skill tests correlated differently acrossthe two groups, indicating that random sequencing elicits different skills |