Editorial: From paper and pencil tasks to virtual reality interventions: improving spatial abilities in girls and women

Chamizo, Victoria D. ; Bourdin, Pierre ; Mendez-Lopez, Magdalena (Universidad de Zaragoza) ; Santamaria, Juan Jose

Resumen: Understanding scientific findings in the context of sex -whether similarities, differences, or complex nuances-is critical to appropriately applying research-derived knowledge to achieve our multiple goals (Clayton, 2016). When discussing spatial abilities or spatial cognition, it is common to acknowledge that it differs between men and women, as well as in other species, with males frequently outperforming females in various spatial tasks (for reviews see Chamizo and Rodrigo, 2019; Halpern, 2012; Kimura, 1999; Mackintosh, 1998; Voyer et al., 1995). Despite being perceived as “politically incorrect” this assertion is supported by substantial evidence from studies with both human and non-human participants. Geary (2021) has suggested that the difference could be attributed, at least partly, to the fact that males tend to use distant landmarks to orient themselves while navigating towards a goal, whereas females may not employ this strategy with comparable frequency. This statement aligns with the range size hypothesis, which is the best predictor of sex differences with non-human participants, a biological hypothesis that predicts sex differences based on the size of the territory covered throughout life (for humans, seeVashro et al., 2016). This hypothesis connects with our ancestors’ past as hunter-gatherers and in other mammals with polygyny, in which promiscuous males mate with multiple females in a breeding session, thereby having a larger home range than females (which is not the case with monogamous males). Despite what has just been said, it is important to note that the differences between men and women in many spatial tasks, such as mental rotation, can sometimes disappear depending on several factors (Jansen-Osmann and Heil, 2007; Hegarty, 2018; Ruthsatz et al., 2019; Álvarez-Vargas et al., 2020; Jost and Jansen, 2023). Future research will have to clarify these apparent inconsistencies..

Idioma: Inglés

DOI: 10.3389/frvir.2023.1286689

Año: 2023

Publicado en: Frontiers in Virtual Reality 4 (2023), 1286689 [3 pp.]
ISSN: 2673-4192

Factor impacto CITESCORE: 5.8 - Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design (Q1) - Human-Computer Interaction (Q2) - Computer Science Applications (Q2)

Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.803 - Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design (Q2) - Human-Computer Interaction (Q2) - Computer Science Applications (Q2)

Tipo y forma: (Versión definitiva)

Área (Departamento): Área Psicobiología (Dpto. Psicología y Sociología)