Person. individ. Diff Vol. 18, No. 6. pp.

693-699, 1995 Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights resend 0191~8869(95)oooo5-4 0191-8869/95 $9.50 + 0.00

THE INFLUENCE OF MIRROR REVERSALS ON MALE AND FEMALE PERFORMANCE IN SPATIAL TASKS: A COMPONENTIAL LOOK
*Michael W. OBoyle, Edward J. Hoff and Harwant S. Gill
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 5001 l-3180, U.S.A.
(Received 29 November 1994)

Summary-OBoyle and Hoff (Neuropsychologia, 25, 977-982,I987) reported that females were faster and more accurate than males at mirror-tracing the outline of random shapes. To account for this differential performance, the authors advanced two alternative explanations. The first was a Spatial Stroop effect which suggested that, because of their enhanced spatial ability, males are especially disadvantaged in escaping the misleading visual feedback provided by the mirror, resulting in slower and less accurate tracings. The second was a manipulospatial hypothesis which suggested that the tracing advantage was related to female superiority in fine-detailed motor control, and perhaps, differential practice at performing skilled motor tasks in mirror-reversed contexts. In the present study, two experiments were conducted to assess the relative viability of these explanations. In Experiment 1, the WAIS-R Block Design task was performed within and outside the context of a mirror. This was done to determine if the observed female advantage was restricted to mirror-tracing per se, or generalizable to other manipulospatial tasks. In Experiment 2, a mental rotation task was performed within and outside the context of a mirror. The latter was designed to reveal if the removal of the motor component would affect the obtained sex difference. The present findings suggest that as long as some form of precision motor manipulation is required, females are superior to males at mirror-reversed spatial tasks. However, when the motor component is eliminated, a male performance advantage emerges in both normal and mirror-reversed contexts, suggesting that the manipulospatial hypothesis is the more viable explanation.

INTRODUCTION

That the two hemispheres of the human brain are specialized for different component contributions to information processing is now well documented (Bradshaw & Nettleton, 1983; Bryden, 1982; Hellige, 1990, 1993). Though oversimplified, the left cerebral hemisphere mediates most linguistic functions while the right cerebral hemisphere bears primary responsibility for complex visuospatial analysis. Moreover, additional research suggests that the extent to which this left/right processing asymmetry is manifest may be related to biological sex and handedness, with the lateralization of such functions being particularly compartmentalized in males and right-handers, and somewhat more diffusely represented across the hemispheres in females and left-handers (McGlone, 1980; OBoyle & Hellige, 1989; Semmes, 1968; Springer & Deutsch, 1993). Thus, from an individual difference perspective, it is reasonable to infer that males and females of left- or right-hand dominance may rely on different cortical regions when attempting a given type of information processing (Lake & Bryden, 1976; Piazza, 1980), and that such differences in functional organization may underlie the performance advantages/disadvantages often found among these groups on a variety of cognitive tasks (Halpem, 1992; Lewis & Harris, 1990; OBoyle & Benbow, 1990; OBoyle & Hellige, 1989). For example, there have been reports of a small but reliable difference between left- and right-handers on several measures of spatial ability (Levy, 1969; Miller, 1971; Nebes, 1971 though see Hardyck and Petrinovich, 1977 for a contrasting opinion). Regarding sex differences, females are often reported to excel on tests of perceptual speed, verbal fluency, and precision motor control, while males exhibit performance advantages on some spatial tasks, like mental rotation and embedded figures (Kimura, 1992). In light of such findings, OBoyle and Hoff (1987) conducted a study to further investigate performance differences between the sexes and handedness groups while engaged in a particular spatial task, mirror-tracing. In their experiment, right- and left-handed males and females were required to trace the outline of a random shape in a mirror-reversed context, using both their dominant
*To whom all correspondence should he addressed. 693

694

Michael W. OBoyle et al.

and non-dominant hands. Because this task required complex visuospatial processing, they anticipated that males would be faster and more accurate than females. Moreover, given the hypothesized differences between the sexes in terms of their functional cerebral organization, it was theorized that males, because of their particularly compartmentalized pattern of lateralization, would trace better with their non-dominant hand as it is more likely to be under direct control of the hemisphere specialized for visuospatial analysis. Females, however, owing to a more bilateral representation of such functions, would be equally able with either hand. The logic here is that each hand would have direct access to cortical regions specialized for visuospatial processing. In keeping with their predictions, OBoyle and Hoff (1987) found that, irrespective of hand preference, males were faster and more accurate when using their non-dominant hand; females were equally able with either hand. Though not definitive, this pattern is congruent with the idea of a sex difference in functional organization of the brain. However, contrary to the authors expectation, females were faster and more accurate than males in this mirror-tracing task. By way of an explanation, they advanced two alternative hypotheses. The first was a Spatial Stroop effect which suggests that males, by virtue of their enhanced spatial ability, have particular difficulty in overcoming the misinformation generated by a mirror-reversed context, resulting in slower and less accurate tracings. The original Stroop Effect (Stroop, 1935) is one in which Ss reading a list of color words experience significant interference when asked to report the color of the ink in which the word is printed, but only if the ink color is incongruent with the written color word (e.g. the word blue printed in green ink). In this instance, the directions of movement reflected in the mirror are misleading (i.e. up is now down, and left is now right), and thus the prevailing representation of coordinate space must be restructured to fit the visual feedback provided. Within this framework, males are hypothesized to have more difficulty in, or greater resistance to modifying their already finely-tuned spatial system, resulting in less effective performance; females, on the other hand, may have a less finely-tuned and more flexible spatial system that is more amenable to such modification and restructuring. A second explanation provided was the manipulospatial hypothesis. In this case, females are thought to be faster and more accurate than males because of their overall superiority in performing tasks requiring fine-detailed motor control, an advantage that may be accentuated by the possibility of differential practice between the sexes at using such skills in mirror-reversed contexts (e.g. the detailed motor activity involved in the application of cosmetics, as contrasted with the gross motor manipuation involved in shaving). In the present study, two experiments were conducted to assess the viability of each of these hypotheses. In the first, the WAIS-R Block Design task was performed by males and females, both within and outside the context of a mirror. The purpose here was to replicate the reported sex difference using a well known manipulospatial task. In the second experiment, males and females performed a mental rotation task in which Ss were asked to judge the direction and degree of rotation of a comparison stimulus relative to a target; on half the trials the comparison stimulus was presented in a mirror-reversed context, and the other half in normal vision. Although the latter task is visuospatial in nature, the motor manipulation requirement has been eliminated. By juxtaposing the findings of the two experiments, it should be possible to pinpoint the extent to which the mirror-reversed context and/or the motor component of the task contribute to the previously reported sex difference in mirror-tracing random shapes.

EXPERIMENT

Method

Sixty undergraduates (30 males and 30 females), enrolled in Psychology classes at Iowa State University, received extra course credit for serving as Ss. Participants were all right-handed as indexed by a 10 item questionnaire designed to determine the hand used when writing, drawing, throwing, using a toothbrush, a scissors, a knife without a fork, a spoon, the upper hand on a broom, striking a match, and opening the lid on a box. Those Ss responding always right or usually right on eight of the 10 items were designated as right-handed.

Mirror reversals

695

80 70 z % 60

No Mirror 4-Block

Mirror

No Mirror 9-Block

Mirror

Fig. I. Latency for Block Design completion within and outside the mirror context as a function of sex and design difficulty.

Apparatus and stimulus materials

The block design cards from the WAIS-R served as stimulus materials. Cards 3,4, and 5 (four-block designs) were designated as easy trials, while cards 6,7, and 8 (nine-block designs) were designated as difficult trials. The cards were presented in a standard mirror-drawing apparatus. This mechanism consists of a mirror connected perpendicularly to one edge of a wooden platform, and a metal shield attached to the opposing edge. The shield is suspended above the wooden platform in such a way that it can be adjusted to block direct vision of any materials resting on the base. Thus, all information is reflected to Ss in a mirror-reversed perspective.
Procedure Ss were instructed that only this mirror-reflected information would be available to guide their movements in reconstructing the various designs. Ss had to reproduce each design both inside (i.e. a mirror-reversed view) andoutside (i.e. normal vision) the mirror apparatus. The experimental session began by placing the appropriate number of blocks beneath the shield, and the target stimulus card on either the mirror platform or alongside on the table. The stimulus card remained covered until the starting cue had been given, at which point timing of the trial commenced and was recorded via a stopwatch. Ss were allowed to use both hands when manipulating the blocks to recreate the designated design. Timing of the trial ceased when the design was complete and properly oriented relative to the target. Order of presentation for each of the 12 experimental trials (2 Presentation Contexts X 2 Levels of Difficulty X 3 Examples) was random. In this way, each block design was equally likely to appear in any sequential position. Also, the likelihood of each pattern being first presented inside or outside the mirror context was counterbalanced across Ss.

Results

Mean completion times for each trial type as a function of sex appear in Fig. 1. A 2 Sex (male/female) X 2 Context (mirror/no-mirror) X 2 Difficulty (easy/hard) mixed-design Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on these data, with Sex serving as a between Ss factor and Context and Difficulty serving as within Ss factors. The results of this analysis revealed a significant main effect for Context, with mirror reversed trials taking longer than those presented in normal vision [F (1,58) = 250.67, P < O.OOl]. A main effect for Difficulty was also found with the nine-block

6%

Michael W. OBoyle et al.

designs requiring significantly longer completion time than the four-block designs [F (158) = 304.54, P < O.OOl]. Moreover, a significant Context X Difficulty interaction was revealed [F (1,58) = 23.38, P < O.OOl] with posr hoc analysis using a Duncans Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955) indicating that not only did the nine-block designs take longer to complete than four-block designs, but this time difference was accentuated when they were performed in a mirror-reversed context (P < 0.05). Of particular interest is the finding of a significant Sex X Context interaction [F (1,58) = 8.27, P < O.OOS]. can be seen in Fig. 1, Sex of S influenced the time taken for block design completion. As Additional post hoc analyses indicated that when the task was performed in normal vision, males took significantly less time than females (P < 0.05). However, when the task was performed within the context of a mirror, females were faster than males. On a precautionary note, the latter effect was only marginally reliable in the more stringent posr hoc evaluation (0.05 < P < 0.10). Nonetheless, this enhanced female (relative to male) performance on a manipulospatial task performed in a mirror-reversed context is reminiscent of that reported by OBoyle and Hoff (1987). No other effects were found to be statistically reliable.

Discussion

Essentially, Experiment 1 reproduces our earlier result and suggests that the enhanced performance of females relative to males in mirror-reversed contexts is not restricted to the tracing of random shapes per se, but is generalizable to other manipulospatial tasks, in this case WAIS-R Block Design. Experiment 1, however, fails to completely tease apart the two explanatory hypotheses offered by OBoyle and Hoff (1987). Specifically, the findings of Experiment 1 suggest that the previously reported sex differences in mirror-tracing cannot be attributable to a female advantage in fine-detailed motor control alone. Had this been so, females might have been expected to outperform males in both the mirror and non-mirror versions of this manipulospatial task. Thus, it still remains to be determined if the observed female advantage is due to a Spatial Stroop phenomenon experienced by males (i.e. the selective interference generated by the misleading visual feedback provided by the mirror), or is related to differential practice that females may have experienced (as contrasted to males) in using fine-detailed motor control in mirror-reversed contexts (i.e. the detailed application of cosmetics by many females, as contrasted with the more gross motor activity associated with shaving in most males). In order to determine which of these two is the more viable hypothesis, a second experiment was conducted, one which requires the Ss to rely upon spatial processing capacities but eliminates the necessity for motor manipulation.

EXPERIMENT

Method Subjects

Fifty-six right-handed Psychology students (28 males and 28 females) served as participants in Experiment 2. S handedness was assessed as previously described.
Apparatus

A mirror-drawing apparatus was also employed in Experiment 2. In addition, four 24-point Vanderplas and Garvin (1959) forms were used as stimuli. Each form was presented in four different orientations referenced to an arbitrary vertical, that is rotated 45 and 135 in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. It should be noted that the chosen angles never exceeded 180 which would make the direction of rotation ambiguous relative to the S. All forms were enlarged to fit on 8.5 X 11 paper.
Procedure

At the beginning of each trial, a target form was placed alongside the mirror apparatus in its designated upright position, and a duplicate of the same form was placed either beside it (i.e. a normal

Mirror reversals

697

Mirror

Comparison

-\

Fig. 2. An example of a counterclockwise,

< 90 mirror rotation.

vision trial) or beneath the shield, on the platform of the mirror-drawing apparatus (i.e. a mirror-reversed trial). Ss were asked to determine the direction (i.e. clockwise or counterclockwise) and degree of rotation (i.e. > or < 90) of the comparison form relative to the target form. It should be noted that on mirror trials, S must mentally flip the reflected image over to represent how the comparison form actually appears beneath the shield, and subsequently use this non-rejected mental representation to make their rotational judgments. To insure that Ss understood the task, they were shown correct examples of each of the four trial types using similar forms not included in the experimental trials (see Fig. 2). On half the trials, Ss made judgments on mirror-reflected comparison forms, and on the other half of the trials, judgments were made when both target and comparison forms were presented in normal vision. Each S was required to perform 32 such trials, defined by the orthogonal combination of 4 Forms X 2 Presentation Contexts (mirror/no-mirror) X 2 Degrees of Rotation ( < or > 90) X 2 Directions of Rotation (clockwise/counterclockwise). The order of trials was completely randomized. and the dependent variables of interest were speed and accuracy of rotational judgment. The timing of each trial commenced with the cue ready, go and the experimenter uncovering the target form. A trial terminated when the S pressed a foot pedal, and verbally identified the direction and degree of rotation. Results Initial evaluation of the latency data revealed no significant effects. Mean number of correct responses when making a rotational judgment appear in Fig. 3. For accuracy, preliminary analysis revealed that the direction of rotation was not significant in the main, nor did it reliably interact with any factor. Hence, the accuracy data were collapsed over this variable. A 2 X 2 X 2 mixed-design ANOVA was conducted, with Sex (male/female) serving as a between Ss factor, and presentation Context (mirror/no mirror) and Degree of rotation ( < or > 90), serving as within Ss factors. For accuracy, significant main effects were found for Sex [F (1,54) = 4.78, P < 0.031, Context [F (1,54) = 71.8 1, P < O.OOOl), and Degree of rotation [F (1,54) = 5.37, P < 0.001). Essentially, males were more accurate than females at making these rotational determinations; mirror-reflected trials were more difficult than no-mirror trials; and rotations greater than 90 were more difficult to

Michael W. OBoyle et al.

No Mirror <90 Degrees

Mirror

No Mirror z-90 Degrees

Mirror

Fig. 3. Mean number of correct rotational judgments within and outside the mirror context as a function of sex and degree of rotation.

discern than those of less than 90. The two latter main effects, however, were tempered by a significant Context X Degree interaction [F (1,54) = 15.13, P < 0.001). Post hoc analysis revealed that the difficulty in determining greater or less than 90 of rotation was accentuated when done in the mirror-reversed context (P < 0.05). Of particular importance, however, is the absence of a significant Sex X Context interaction. Thus, males were more accurate than females in judging the degree of rotation in both the normal and mirror-reversed contexts.

Discusssion

In Experiment 2, males were more accurate than females in determining the degree of rotation of random forms, irrespective of their presentation within or outside of a mirror. This finding suggests that the previously observed sex differences in mirror-tracing by OBoyle and Hoff (1987), and the performance pattern obtained in the Block Design task (Experiment 1) are not readily explained by the proposed Spatial Stroop effect. The reasoning for this conclusion is straightforward. Should the latter have been true, females would have once again demonstrated enhanced performance (as compared to males) for rotational judgments within (but not outside of) the mirror-reversed context. Apparently, the motor component required in tracing random forms and in Block Design manipulations are critical to the observed female advantage, lending support to the proposed manipulospatial hypothesis. Thus, a female advantage in precision motor control as proposed by Kimura (1992) and, particularly, as it may be sharpened by differential practice at using such skill in mirror-reversed contexts, are more likely responsible for the reported sex difference.

Conclusions

The primary finding in this set of experiments is that sex differences do exist in the performance of spatial tasks, but that predicting which sex will outperform the other is a very complex process. To assume that males will outperform females because a given task ostensibly requires high level spatial ability is much too simplistic. In the present study, males were more effective than females in performing two different types of spatial tasks when presented in normal vision. However, when the task required both spatial skill and refined motor manipulation in a mirror, females reversed this advantage. Thus, in isolation, the apparent spatial nature of the task was insufficient to predict the

Mirror reversals

699

direction of the sex advantage. Apparently, whatever spatial processing advantage males might bring to such spatial tasks is eclipsed by their less finely-tuned motor skills and their lack of experience at using them in mirror-reversed contexts. Conversely, whatever spatial processing difficulties females may experience relative to males in such tasks is counterbalanced by enhanced fine-detailed motor skills which may have been further enhanced by differential practice at using them in mirror-reversed situations. In fact, for both mirror-tracing and in the mirror-reversed conditions of Block Design (Experiment l), the motor component and experience factor combined to produce what might have been for some, an unexpected female performance advantage. Of course, additional research is needed using males and females who are equivalent in exposure to, and practice at, precision motor movements in mirror-reversed contexts. Data obtained under such conditions would provide insight as to whether the observed sex difference is primarily environmental in nature or related to ones biology. In any event, our findings suggest that predictions about sex differences in the performance of spatial tasks should not be based solely and reflexively on the apparent necessity for spatial processing. Rather, for accurate predictions, one needs to identify and weight the relative importance of the various components comprising task performance, and subsequently, evaluate the extent to which such component processes are more or less advantageous to the sex of those being tested. By using this componential approach, some of the apparent confusion in this already complicated literature might be avoided. REFERENCES
Human cerebral asymmetry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. asymmetn: in the intact bmin. New York: Academic Press. Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-tests. Biometricu, I I, I-42. Halpem, D. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Hardyck.C. & Petrinovich, F. (I 977).Left-handedness. L. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 385404. Hellige, J. B. (1990). Hemispheric specialization. In Rosenweig, M. & Porter, L. (Eds). Ann& Rev& ofP.s~holog,v. 41, S5-80. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review. Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmerry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Scientific Americun, 267(3), I 18-l 26. Lake, D. A. & Bryden, M. P. (1976). Handedness and sex differences in hemispheric asymmetry. Bruin and Language. 3, 266-282. Levy. J. (1969). Possible basis for the evolution of lateral specialization of the human brain. Nature. 224, 614-6 IS. Lewis, R. S. & Harris, L. J. (1990). Handedness, sex and spatial ability. In Coren, S. (Ed.), Left-handedness: Behavioral implications and anomalies pp. 3 19-336. Amsterdam: North-Holland. McGlone. J. (1980). Sex differences in human brain activity: A critical review. BehuviorulundBruin andSciences, .?. 138-l 53. Miller, E. (1971). Handedness and the pattern of human ability. British Journal of Psychology, 62, I I l-l 12. Nebes, R. D. (I 97 1). Handedness and the perception of part-whole relationships. Cortex, 7, 350-356.

Bradshaw, J. L. & Nettleton, N. C. (1983).

Functional

Bryden.M. P. (I 982).Later&v:

OBoyle. M. W. & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Handedness and its relationship to ability and talent. In Coren. S. (Ed.). Lc$-handedness: Behuviorul implications and anomalies (pp. 343-372). Amsterdam: North-Holland. OBoyle, M. W. & Hellige, J. B. (1989). Cerebral hemisphere asymmetry and individual differences in cognition. Learning
und Individual 25.977-982. Differences, I, 7-35. NeUr01)S?.(.h0/0gi(I,

OBoyle, M. W. &Hoff, E. J. (1987). Gender and handedness differences in mirror-tracing random forms.

PiaLla, D. M. (1980). The influence of sex and handedness in the hemispheric specialization of verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologiu, 18, 163-I 76. Semmes, J. (1968). Hemispheric specialization: Possible clue to mechanism. Neuropsychologia, 6, I l-26. Springer, S. & Deutsch, G. (1993). Left bruin, right bruin (3rd Edn). San Francisco. CA: W. H. Freeman. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journul of Experimentul Psvchology, IN. 643-662. Vanderplas, J. .I. & Garvin, E. A. (1959). The association value of random shapes. Jonrnal of.Exper;mentcd Psychology, 57.
147-154.