Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
DOI: 10.5460/jbhsi.v4.2.34111
vol. 4 num. 2
Pp. 103-115 NOV-2012 / ABR-2013
Sex differenceS in the viSuoSpatial Sketchpad
in Scholar children
DIFERENCIAS SEXUALES EN LA AGENDA VISO-ESPACIAL
DE NIÑOS ESCOLARES
Miguel Ángel Hernández-Balderas
Gloria Rángel-Félix
Juan Carlos Zavala-González
Helena Romero-Romero
Juan Felipe Silva-Pereyra
Irma Yolanda del Rio-Portilla
Ma. de Lourdes Luviano-Vargas
Anaid Juanita Vera-Romero
Vicente Guerrero-Juárez
Jorge Bernal-Hernández
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad
de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Estado de México,
México.
Received:August 15,2012
Revised: September 10, 2012
Accepted: Octubre 19, 2012
This study was supported by Project PAPCA 2010-2011 N.
55, FES Iztacala, UNAM. Special thanks to Dulce Castillo for
the translation assistance, to the anonymous referees for
their helpful comments on the original manuscript and to the
children and parents who gave their time for this research.
Each author´s contribution was as follows: MAHB: children
evaluation, statistical analysis and article writing; GRF: children
evaluation and article writing; JCZG: children evaluation and
article writing; HRR: children evaluation and article revision;
JSP: statistical analysis and article revision; IYRP: methodology
assistance and article revision; LLV: children evaluation;
AJVR: children evaluation, statistical analysis, and article
translation; VG: neurological assessment; JBH: article writing,
methodology participation , statistical analysis and general
revision. Correspondence should be addressed to Jorge
Bernal Hernández PhD. Laboratorio de Neurometría, FES
Iztacala, UNAM. Av. de los Barrios No. 1, Los Reyes Iztacala,
Tlalnepantla, Estado de México, C.P. 54090, México. E-mail:
jbernal@unam.mx
Abstract
This paper studies sex differences in working memory related to the visuospatial sketchpad and
its interaction with the central executive through performance of a dual task with different levels
of difficulty. Fourteen boys and 14 girls between 9 and 10 years old performed a memory task
(primary task) with 4 levels of difficulty corresponding to 4 memory load levels, and a Go/No-go
task as a visuospatial stimuli processing task (secondary task). The results demonstrated that the
increase in the difficulty level in the primary task makes subjects have fewer correct responses in
the secondary task; however, this only affected males significantly. These results might be a consequence of the amount of resources given by the central executive to perform the tasks: more
resources were given to accomplish the primary task than to the secondary task, affecting the
performance of the second. One may concluded that the relations between the central executive
(processing) and the visuospatial sketchpad (storage) seem to be determined by a higher resource
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
demand required by the storage in the memory, to the detriment of the processing activities of
the central executive.
Key words: Sex differences in children, visuospatial sketchpad.
Resumen
En la presente investigación se estudiaron las diferencias sexuales en la memoria de trabajo relacionadas con la agenda viso-espacial y la interacción ejecutivo central-agenda viso-espacial mediante una
tarea dual con diferentes niveles de dificultad. Participaron 14 niñas y 14 niños con edades entre 9 y
10 años, quienes realizaron una tarea de almacenamiento (tarea primaria), con 4 niveles de carga en la
memoria y una tarea Go/No-Go como tarea de procesamiento de estímulos viso-espaciales (tarea secundaria). Los resultados mostraron que a mayor nivel de carga en la tarea primaria, los sujetos tuvieron
significativamente menos aciertos en la tarea secundaria, sin embargo esto afectó significativamente
solo a los niños. Lo anterior pudo deberse a que el ejecutivo central destinó mayores recursos a la
tarea primaria que a la secundaria lo que afectó el desempeño en ésta última. Se puede concluir que
las relaciones entre el ejecutivo central (procesamiento) y la agenda viso-espacial (almacenamiento)
parecen estar determinadas por una mayor demanda de recursos que exige el almacenamiento en la
memoria, en detrimento de las actividades de procesamiento del ejecutivo central.
Palabras clave: Diferencias sexuales en niños, agenda viso-espacial.
Introduction
Working memory (WM) is a system of limited
capacity, simultaneously responsible for processing and temporarily storing information
(Baddeley, 1986). According to Baddeley’s model
(2000), WM has four subsystems. The central
executive (CE), which controls the flow of assigned attention resources to process or store (by
reviewing) information (Cowan, 2005; Engle, Kane,
& Tuholski, 1999). This is to say, it is an attention
control system capable of focusing and changing
attention resources, but it does not have storage capacity (Baddeley, 2003). The phonological
loop (PL), which retains and manipulates verbal
material, is composed of two components: the
phonological store and the articulatory rehearsal
component; the first is a memory store that is
able to retain information based on speech for a
short period of time (for example, read words),
and the second is responsible for two different
functions: changing visual information into a
speech-based code, and placing it into the phonological store and renewing the information at
the phonological store, counteracting the decay
process. The visuospatial sketchpad (VSSP) processes and stores visual and spatial information.
The episodic buffer processes both verbal and
visuospatial information. Of these components,
104
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
the CE and the PL are the most studied; not so
the VSSP and the episodic buffer.
The VSSP works in the recognition and manipulation of objects, in academic tasks and
in the memory of places, in mathematical and
scientific thinking (Delgado, & Prieto, 2004), in
the representation and manipulation of visual
information, in solving of visuospatial problems,
and takes an important role in disciplines of
knowledge such as engineering, architecture,
physics, chemistry and surgery (Sorby, & Baartmans, 1996). Aside from participating in spatial
orientation activities, the VSSP is fundamental in
reading comprehension and mental calculation
(Jones, & Morris, 1992). According to Logie (1995)
and Pickering, Gathercole, Hall, & Lloyd (2001)
the VSSP is divided into two subcomponents:
visual cache that storages color an visual forms,
and an inner scribe related to spatial information
and movement; this information is reviewed at
the visual cache and then is transferred to the
CE to be processed.
According to WM definition, its capacity must
be by measured employing tasks that simultaneously impose demands in the processing and
storage of information (Alloway, & Archibald,
2008); this would demand resources both for
the CE (processing) and for the corresponding
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
store (visual and/or visuospatial). The way in
which resources are distributed allows evaluating the relations between the CE and each
of the other components. For example, in a
verbal dual task, the execution of the subjects
is less efficient when the primary task is more
complex or insofar as the secondary task also
involves verbal stimuli (Hunt, & Ellis, 1999). This
may be due to the high level of demand made
to the CE, since attention resources are limited
and must be distributed to the execution of
two tasks as well as interference causing the
use of the same type of information on both
tasks. However, the use of simple tasks in the
WM studies is frequent (Jenkin, Myerson,
Hale, & Fry 1999). ;Factors that influence the
capacity of the cognitive functions like the
WM include the age and sex. In this field, the
investigations are oriented to the study of the
differences between men and women, establishing contrasts between both in relation to
verbal and visuospatial abilities. Some studies
(Coluccia, & Louse, 2004; Kimura, 1996; Levine,
Vasilyeva, Lourenco, Newcobe, & Huttenlocher,
2005) show that women perform better at verbal
tasks and verbal articulation, learn to write and
read more quickly, and demonstrate a greater
capacity in perceptual speed and visual memory
(both functions related with the left side of the
brain), while men have a better performance at
visuospatial tasks like spatial visualization (ability
in the use of analytical strategies to manipulate
spatial information), spatial perception (body
orientation in the space), mental rotation of
two- or three-dimensional figures, measuring
speed and precision, form recognition, left-right
discrimination, representation of two-dimensional objects into three-dimensional objects
and unfolding visual forms into complete sets
(functions related with the right side of the
brain) (Gil-Verona, Macías, Pastor, Paz, Barbosa,
Maniega et al., 2003; Goldberg, 2001).
In a study where a meta-analyses was made,
Torres, Gomez-Hil, Vidal, Puig, Bogey, & Salamero (2006) also showed that women perform
at higher levels in verbal fluency, perceptual
speed, memory and verbal learning, and men
perform better at visuospatial ability, math
problem and visual memory. Additionally, in a
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
more recent analysis of the literature, there was
reported superior execution in men in some
visuospatial tasks, such as object localization
(Andreano, & Cahill, 2009). Other authors had
observed these effects in experimental studies
(Lawton, & Hatcher, 2005; Singh, & Mishra,
2004). In a study that evaluated age and sex in
youth and the elderly during passive spatial
tasks (discrimination and perceptual memory
of the distance) and in active tasks such as
mental rotation, higher performance was observed in men during the mental rotation task,
while women performed more highly during
the other tasks (Iachini, Ruggiero, Ruotolo, &
Pizza, 2008). However, Harness, Jacot, Scherf,
White, & Warnick (2008) showed than women
perform better than men in verbal as well as
visuospatial tasks.
In contrast to the previous studies, Feingold
(1988) found that sex-based differences in verbal
fluency and mathematical problem-solving are
moderated or absent in some cases, while in
visuospatial processing tasks the differences
are very conspicuous, on account of which it
may be supposed that the WM, and particularly the VSSP, is involved in these differences.
Nonetheless, some studies deny the existence
of sex-based differences in cognitive abilities.
Hyde (2005) maintains that men and women
are more cognitively similar than is reflected
in studies on sex-based differences. Moreover
Rahman, Bakare, & Serinsu (2011) show that these
differences do not exist while Torres, GomezGil, Vidal, Puig, & Salamero (2006) did not find
differences in tasks that measure attention. In
studies involving adolescents, there were no
sex differences regarding recall of verbal stimuli (words) and image recall (Ionescu, 2008).
In the few studies that have directly approached WM related to sex, we found equally
contradictory results. Iachini, Ruggeiro, Ruotolo, & Pizza (2008) found superior execution
in women, relative to men, in the visuospatial
WM measured through the Corsi’s block task.
Other studies have reported a better performance for men at WM tasks of arithmetic type
(Lynn, & Irwing, 2008) and authors such as Torres, Gómez-Gil, Vidal, Puig Boget, & Salamero
(2006) did not find differences at the WM tasks.
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
105
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
So, the lack of consistency is evident in studies
about the sex differences in the various cognitive
aspects that have been studied, including the
WM. However, the results seem to show more
evidence of differences between the subjects
of different sex even if there is clarity missing.
Another possibility to understand the sex
differences in visuospatial processing could be
the study of results provided by investigations
made in subjects of different ages, especially
at early ages, since at these stages the role of
experience could be less important than the
natural biological mechanisms of every male
or female subject.
Authors like Clements-Stephens, Rimrodt,
& Cutting (2009) argue that studying the differences based on sex during the visuospatial
processing in children and teens could provide
evidence about the maturation of important
regions involved in this type of processing,
and also identify the development of the sex
differences due to the use of strategies, which
are in turn influenced by the experience. However, investigations conducted with children of
different ages are very few so far.
Several investigations have shown that differences between men and women arise around
preschool age or during the first primary school
year. Levine, Huttenlocher, Taylor, & Langrock
(1999) found that, on average, preschool-aged
children are more precise than girls at tasks that
measure precision in spatial transformations.
They concluded that sex differences are present in spatial tasks since the 4 and half years
old. However, Tzuriel, & Egozi (2010) suggest
that the sex differences observed in children
could be the consequence of other factors,
such as training, since when men and women
are trained in mental rotation tasks, there is no
any difference observed between them.
As it happens in the adult case, the few studies
that directly research the WM are not consistent
either. Sánchez, Taballo, Marro, Sánchez, Yorio,
& Segura (2009) carried out a study about de
WM develop in children. They found that the
performance improves with age, as in the case of
recall and recognition of visuospatial patterns,
although it is not clear if this improvement is
the product of an increase in sketchpad capa-
106
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
city during infancy or changes in strategy that
affect the amount of information that can be
retained. In this study it was also observed that
sex differences are present since childhood,
because boys have a better performance than
girls at visuospatial tasks. However, in a similar
study, boys performed worse than girls; this
result was interpreted as a cerebral immaturity
in boys related to girls, between 6 and 10 years
old (Vuaontela, Steenari, Carlson, Kolvisto,
Fjälberg, & Aronen, 2003).
Some authors highlight that these differences could be caused by the spatial processes
evaluated, among which the WM is emphasized (Iachini, Ruggiero, Ruotolo, & Pizza, 2008).
Inside the so-called “spatial memory,” one
may distinguish to visuospatial WM, memory
for object location, memory for routes and
sequential spatial information (Kessels, De
Haan, Kappelle, & Postma, 2001; Kesses, Postma, Kappelle, & De Haan, 2002; Postma, 2000;
Postma, Jager, Kessels, Hans, Koppeschaar,
& Van Hok, 2004). However, even in studies
where the WM is mentioned as the principal
object of study, its role is rarely well-specified.
Additionally, there are no pure measures of this
type of processing, because some images can
be coded either semantically or phonologically
(Pickering, 2001). For example, Palmer (2000)
reported that children under 8 years codify the
images visually, but after that age they tend to
use phonological codification for its recall (see
also Hitch, Halliday, Schaafstal, & Scharaagen,
1988). Some authors like Robert, & Savoie (2006)
suggest that the lack of consensus in the studies
about sex differences might be caused by the
fact that many tasks that make either verbal
or visuospatial demands in WM tasks only
make storage demands explicit. These authors
provide evidence that, in comparison with
simple tasks, dual tasks are better at showing
sex differences in the verbal and visuospatial
WM (see also Cronoldi, & Vecchi, 2003) and
conclude that women perform better than
men when the task requires, besides storage,
either a verbal or visuospatial process (Kaufman,
2007). In this context it has been observed that
the sex differences in spatial orientation only
emerge when the tasks require a high load of
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
the visuospatial WM (Coluccia, & Louse, 2004).
Thus, it seems that studies on the visuospatial
WM in which dual tasks are used and in which
high demands are made to memory load are
those which present more consistent results in
relation with sex differences in spatial ability.
The purpose of this paper was to compare
the visuospatial WM in boys and girls of school
age, using a dual task with different load in the
VSSP store, aside from establishing how the CE
and visuospatial interact in this type of tasks.
Method
SUBJECTS
Fourteen girls (x̄ = 9.7 years) and 14 boys (x̄ =
9.6 years) participated, all of whom attend public schools in Mexico City. They were in the
academic school grade corresponding to their
age. All children voluntarily participated after an
announcement was made in 2 schools. Children
were selected with an intellectual coefficient ≥
85 according to the WISC-R. They had a normal
neurological and neuropsychological evaluation
that was made by a neuropsychologist and a
neurologist.
TASK
The children performed a dual task with simultaneously demand of processing and storing
visuospatial stimulus and 4 levels of memory
load. At the beginning of each session, the
instructions were shown on the computer
screen. The experimental phase consisted of
the execution of a primary and a secondary
task (figure 1). At the primary task there were
presented 3x4 cells matrices with a number of
cells randomly filled according to the memory
load level (figure 2) which were needed to be
remembered by the subjects, while the secondary task consisted into a Go/No-Go visual task.
The stimuli of which consisted this secondary
task were arrows pointing to different directions. During the execution of the secondary
task, subjects were instructed to “review in
memory” the position of the filled cells of the
given matrix in the primary task.
In the zero memory load (difficulty level 1),
subjects only executed the secondary task,
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
which consisted in a pseudo-random presentation of series of arrows in different direction
(fghlijkm). The subjects were instructed
to respond, as quick as possible, to the presentation of the target stimuli (m) by clicking
the left button of the mouse, while the other
stimuli did not require any type of response.
The duration of each stimulus was 100 ms and
had an inter-stimuli interval of 1.8-2.2 seconds.
A total of 360 stimuli were presented divided
into 4 blocks, 18 target stimuli and 72 frequent
stimuli per block with a duration of 3 minutes
and 4 seconds.
In the next 3 levels (i.e., low memory load,
medium memory load and high memory load) the
subjects performed both tasks at the same time.
In the primary task, each block begins with the
presentation of a matrix during 10 seconds for
storage in the memory. Immediately afterward
began the secondary task, which consisted in the
Go/No-Go task (in the same manner that they
did in the zero load condition). After this task
was done, the recall stage began, where three
different matrices were randomly presented one
at a time where the one that was presented in
the primary task was or was not included. The
subject had to respond by clicking the left button
of the mouse when the matrix was identified
and clicking the right button when the matrix
was not included. The matrix presented at the
start of each block was different in each of
them. Thus, each level included the following
order of phases: the storage demands (matrix),
processing (execute the Go/No-Go task) and
recall. In these 3 levels, the duration of each
block was 3 minutes, 25 seconds.
The presentation of the matrices and the arrows
was made in white with a black background on
the center of the computer screen; the task
has a total running time of 50 minutes, and was
delivered by the STIM program (NeuroScan,
1995) on a computer.
DATA ANALYSES
To compare the performance of both sexes, and
observe the differences between the memory
load levels (level 1, 2, 3 and 4), the percentage
of correct responses and reaction time on the
secondary task, as well as the percentage of
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
107
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
Figure 1. Sequence of events during the experimental session (dual task) for the low memory load
condition. A trial started with the primary task which consisted in the presentation of a matrix (during 10 seconds). Subjects were asked to "keep in mind" (i.e., storage phase) the matrix presented.
They continued with the secondary task (processing phase), in which the subject responded to the
target stimuli presentation (enclosed in a box). After the secondary task, subjects were asked to
identify between three matrices randomly presented one by one. One of them should be the one
presented at beginning of the trial (Recall phase) and the children must press a button of mouse.
Figure 2. Samples of matrices presented at low memory load (left matrix), medium memory load
(central matrix) and high memory load (right matrix), which consisted of presentation of 1, 3 and 6
points respectively and where the subjects have to remember their positions.
matrices-recalled in the primary task, were
analyzed. At the secondary task, the percentage
of correct responses and the average of the
reaction times for each trial block were obtained, and the blocks for each load level were
averaged. For the primary task, matrix-recalled
was measured by obtaining the percentage of
correctly-remembered matrices in each level
(because each level consisted of 4 blocks and
in each block a new matrix to remember was
presented, a total of 4 matrices was presented per level). Before statistical analysis, the
percentages were transformed using ARCSIN
[SQRT (percentage/100)] to reach an approximation to the normal distribution. A series
of ANOVAs was made with two factors: Sex
(girls and boys) as an inter-subject factor and
108
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
Memory load level (1, 2, 3 and 4) as an intrasubject factor, for the percentage of correct
recall and percentage of correct responses as
well as for reaction times. When there were
two or more degrees of freedom at the numerator, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was
applied. Post hoc multiple tests were carried
out by the Tukey test when necessary.
Results
SECONDARY TASK
As it is shown on Table 1, the main effect of the
Memory load level was statically significant.
On Figure 3 and table 2, it is shown that as the
level in the Memory load increased, i.e. as the
matrices had a larger number of filled cells,
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
the subjects had fewer correct responses in
the secondary task, although in the level 4,
with higher load, the number correct responses slightly increased. However, the post hoc
analyses only showed significant differences
between the percentages obtained at the zero
memory load versus low memory load (p <
.001), versus medium memory load (p < .001)
and versus high memory load (p < .001). Thus
since the level in which the visuospatial load
started to increase, the performance at the
secondary tasks significantly decreased.
Table 1
Results of ANOVA using the percentage of correct
responses (transformed values) from the secondary
task
Effect
F
d. f.
P
Epsilon
Sex
1.1
1, 26
.3
---
ML
10.5
1.8, 47.9 .000007
.6
Sex x ML
3.1
1.8, 47.9
.6
.03
d.f.= degree of freedom, ML= Memory load
Table 2.
Means and Standard deviations of percentage of correct responses in the secondary task
Memory load
1
2
3
4
Total
Sex
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x
S.D.
Girls
72
18
60
24
58
25
57
25
62
23
Boys
76
13
44
18
42
16
51
22
53
17
Total
74
16
52
22
50
22
54
23
----
----
x̄ = Mean, S.D.= Standard Deviation, Total = All subjects across memory load conditions
Figure 3. Effect of memory load (primary task) on the percentage of correct responses of the secondary task for all children. Notice the dramatic decrease in the percentage of correct responses in
the low memory load.
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
109
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
Although the main effect of the Sex was not
statically significant, there was a significant Sex
by Memory load level interaction (see tables
1 and 2 and figure 4). In the low memory load
level, boys and girls had similar performance,
but when the memory load increased, in the
medium memory load level for example, the
number of correct responses decreased in
both groups, but in the girls the decrease was
moderate while in the boys, it was more severe. In accordance to the post hoc analyses,
these sex differences were significant in the
low memory load (p = .01) and in the medium
memory load (p = .004). Likewise, the between
group post hoc comparisons (boys versus girls)
showed that in the boys the number of correct
responses significantly decreased as the Memory
load level increased (table 2).This was observed
in the comparisons of the zero memory load
level versus low memory load level (p < .001),
versus medium memory load level (p<.001) and
versus high memory load level (p<.001). On the
other hand, in the girls, the differences in the
percentage of correct responses related with
the Memory load level were not significant.
Figure 4. Effect of memory load (primary task) on the percentage of correct responses of the secondary task by boys and girls. It can be observed the lowest percentage of correct responses for low
and medium memory load conditions in the group of boys.
The analysis of the reaction times related to
the Memory load level, in the secondary task,
did not show significant differences between
groups (table 3). However, there was a marginal
difference in the main effect of the Memory load
level. As Table 4 shows, in boys and girls there
was a tendency of increasing the reaction times
as the Memory load level decreased.
Table 3.
Results of ANOVA using reaction times from the
secondary task
Effect
F
d. f.
p
Epsilon
1.1
1, 26
.3
---
ML
2.3
2.2, 56.5
.09
.7
Sex x ML
1.3
3, 78
.3
.7
Sex
d.f.= degree of freedom, ML= Memory load
110
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
Table 4.
Means and Standard deviations of Reaction times for the secondary task
Memory load
1
2
3
4
Total
Sex
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
Girls
565.9
79.3
594.5
66.2
575.8
65.6
579.6
66.5
578.9
69.4
Boys
571.8
39.3
592.1
63.2
615.2
27.5
608.3
53.6
596.9
45.9
Total
568.9
61.4
593.3
63.5
595.5
53.3
593.9
61
---
---
x̄ = Mean, S.D.= Standard Deviation, Total = All subjects across memory load conditions
Primary Task
As table 5 shows, in the primary task (memorization of matrices), there were no significant main
effects or interactions. On table 6 one may notice
that both groups remembered between 80% and
90% of the presented matrices, independently
of the memory load level.
Table 5.
Results of ANOVA using the percentage of correct
responses (transformed values) from the primary task
Effect
F
d. f.
p
Epsilon
Sex
.8
1, 26
.4
---
ML
1.6
1.9, 48.8
.2
.9
Sex x ML
.3
1.9, 48.8
.7
.9
d.f.= degree of freedom, ML= Memory load
Table 6.
Means and Standard deviations of percentage of correct responses in the primary task (recall)
Memory load
2
3
4
Total
Sex
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
x̄
S.D.
Girls
80
22
92
11
82
20
85
18
Boys
85
25
92
11
87
18
88
18
Total
83
23
92
11
84
19
---
---
x̄= Mean, S.D.= Standard Deviation, Total = All subjects across 3 levels of memory load conditions
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
111
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
Discussion
Although the principal goal of this paper was
the study of sex differences in the visuospatial
processing, we will discuss the general results
and then bring these findings into context with
sex-related differences.
Processing and storing of information in the
VSSP need attentional resources (supplied by the
CE). These resources are limited but flexible, since
they can be used in active way (categorize, take
decisions, etc.) or in a passive way like it happens
in the PL. This paper showed that the subjects
maintained a uniform recall of the matrices independently of the memory load in the VSSP.
However, memory load significantly affected the
performance in the secondary task, showing that
the CE was seriously affected in relation to the
matrix complexity. This could be caused by the
CE allocated more resources to the primary task
and the resources designated to the secondary
task were insufficient, and then the performance
in the secondary task was severally affected. This
effect may have been aggravated by the fact that
in the primary and secondary tasks, the stimuli
were visuospatial (Hunt, & Ellis 1999). Thus, we
can observe that the relations between the CE
(processing) and the VSSP (storage) seem to
be determined by a huge demand of resources
that require the storage in the memory, having
in consequence a deficient CE.
In relation to the sex, in both groups were
observed a similar performance in the recall and
storage stages. However, it is clear that in the
secondary task the boys were the most affected
(Sex x Memory load interaction). This indicates
that the boys had less correct responses in the
secondary task as the memory load increased.
Vuontela et al. (2003) and Levine et al. (1999)
also observed that boys performed worse than
girls in WM spatial tasks, but these authors
do not specify how the different components
of the WM interact. In accordance with our
interpretation, the boys allocated less resources to the processing stage (secondary task)
and more to the storage phase, while the girls
allocated a sufficient amount of resources to
have a similar performance as the boys. This
allowed the girls rely on more resources than
112
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
the boys in the processing stage having better
performance than them (probably in terms of
better strategy). Perhaps these different strategies are what Logie, & Pearson (1997) and
Tzuriel, & Egozi (2010) refer to the differences
in the visuospatial ability may depend on differences in the processing strategies affecting
the amount of information that can be retained
and processed simultaneously.
In the literature there are others factors mentioned that could influence the presence of sex
differences such as the transformation of visuospatial information into phonological codes in infants
older than 8 years (Palmer, 2000; Pickering, 2001).
It is possible that the girls of this sample transformed the visual items into phonological codes (for
example, finding similarities in the configuration
of the matrix with some letter or figure).
Other possibility could be that independently
of strategies, the demands for codification storage
require more attentional resources from boys
than from girls, which could impede the correct
information processing. This could result in more
errors in the secondary task for the boys. These
differences may be observed only after an increase in the memory load. Thus, it seems that sex
differences can only be observed from the tasks
that test high WM storage demands. This agrees
with the ideas expressed by Coluccia, & Louse
(2004), who assure that the differences in spatial
orientation only arise when the tasks require a
high memory load of the visuospatial processing.
Based on the results of this study, we can affirm
that the lack of uniformity in the difficulty level of
the tasks used in previous investigations could be
a factor that explains why in some studies there
have not been observed sex-based differences
either in the children or adults.
These results also show that the dual task
used in this study was useful in differentiating
between individuals of different sex. The fact
that it involved a dual task where VSSP load was
varied, gathered the necessary conditions to test
this WM system, confirming the statements of
Robert, & Savoie (2006), Cornoldi, & Vecchi (2003)
and Kaufman (2007). However, it is important to
mention that the task could not discriminate
between the memory load differences, so it is
important to pay attention to this factor.
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
The studies about visuospatial abilities, frequently found better performance in men, which
shows the possible influence of the gonadal
hormones in their performances. Some authors
have proposed that these differences are related to the hemispheric specialization to which
gonadal hormones contribute since birth (Gil
Verona et al., 2003).
Contrary to these observations, in the present
study, the girls performed better than the boys,
what make us suppose that it is not until the
adolescence that sexual difference begins to be
expressed until it reaches its adult form, when
hormonal development has finished. So, the hormonal factor could interact with the experience
to solve paradigms of dual type that were used
to study the WM.
Data on this paper showed higher performance for girls in visuospatial WM. Robert, & Savoi
(2006) and Kaufman (2007) observed a similar
trend between adult men and women, using
a very similar task as this study. However, it is
necessary to emphasize that this study used a
small sample, which limits the generalization of
the findings.
Conclusions
In this paper, it is clear that girls showed a better performance than boys in their processing
abilities, in situations where the amount of load
of visuospatial storage was increased. The memory load level in the tasks that measures the
visuospatial WM capacity is an important factor
in differentiating the performance between girls
and boys in the visuospatial ability.
References
Alloway, T. P., & Archibald, L. (2008). Working
memory and learning in children with
developmental coordination disorder and
specific language impairment. Journal of
Learning Disabilites, 41, 251-262, available via:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219408315815
Andreano, M. J., & Cahill, L. (2009). Sex influences
on the neurobiology of learning and memory.
Learning and Memory, 16, 248-266, available
via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.918309
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: looking
back and looking forward. Neuroscience,
Nature Reviews, 4, 829-839, available via:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
Baddeley, A. D. (2000) The episodic buffer:
a new component of working memory?
Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, (11), 417-423,
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S13646613(00)01538-2
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Clements-Stephens, A. M., Rimrodt, S. L., & Cutting,
L. E. (2009). Developmental sex differences in
basic visuospatial processing: Differences in
strategic use? Neuroscience letters, 449, 155160, available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
neulet.2008.10.094
Coluccia, E., & Louse, G. (2004). Gender
differences in spatial orientation: A review.
Journal of enviromental psychology, 24, 329340, available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2004.08.006
Cornoldi, C., & Vecchi, T. (2003). Visuo-spatial
working memory and individual differences.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Cowan, N. (2005).Understand ingintelligence:
Asummary and an adjustable attention
hypothesis. In O. Wilhelm, & R. W. Engle (Eds.),
Understanding and measuring intelligence.
(pp.469–488).New York: Sage
Delgado, A. R., & Prieto, G. (2004) Cognitive
mediators and sex related differences
in mathematics. Intelligence, 32, 25-32,
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01602896(03)00061-8
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S.W. (1999).
Individual differences in working memory
capacity and what they tell us about controlled
attention, general fluid intelligence and
functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake
y P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory:
Mechanisms of active maintenance and
executive control. (pp.102–134). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Feingold, A. (1988) Cognitive gender differences
are disappearing. American Psychologist,
43, 95-103, available via: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.95
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
113
Hernández-Balderas, Rangel-Félix, Zavala-González, Romero-Romero, Silva Pereyra, del Río-Portilla, et. al.
Gil-Verona, J. A., Macías, J. A., Pastor, J. F., Paz, F.,
Barbosa, M., Maniega, M. A., Román, J. M., López,
A., Alvarez-Alfageme, I., Rami-González, L., &
Boget, T. (2003). Diferencias sexuales en sistema
nervioso humano. Una revisión desde el punto de
vista psiconeurobiológico. Revista Internacional de
Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 3 (2), 351-361.
Goldberg, E. (2001) The Executive Brain. Frontal
lobes and the civilized mind. OXFORD.
University Press.
Harness, A., Jacot, L., Scherf, S., White, A., &
Warnick, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in
working memory. Psychological reports, 103,
214-218.
Hitch, G. J., Halliday, M. S., Schaafstal, A. M., &
Scharaagen, J. M. C. (1998) Visual working
memory in children. Memory and cognition,
16, 120-132.
Hunt, R. R., & Ellis, H. C. (1999). Fundamentals of
cognitive psychology (6th Ed.). Boston:McGrawHill.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender similarities
hyphotesis. American Psychologist, 60 (6),
581-592.
Iachini, T., Ruggiero, G., Ruotolo, F., & Pizza, R,
(2008). Cap 16. Age and gender differences in
some components of spatial cognition. In H. T.
Benninghouse et al. (Eds.), Women And Aging:
New Research. Nova Science Publishers. Inc.
Ionescu, M. D. (2008). Sex differences in memory
and estimates for pictures and words.
Psychological Reports, 87, 315-322.
Jenkins, L., Myerson, J., Hale, S., & Fry, F. A. (1999).
Individual and developmental differences in
working memory across the life span. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 6 (1), 28-40, available via: http://
dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03210810
Jones, D., & Morris, N. (1992). Irrelevant speech
and serial recall: implications for theories of
attention and working memory. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 33, 212-229, available
via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1992.
tb00911.x
Kaufman, S. B. (2007). Sex differences in mental
rotation and spatial visualization ability: Can
they be accounted for by differences in working
memory capacity? Intelligence, 35, 211-223,
available
via:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
intell.2006.07.009
114
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
Kessels, R. P. C., De Haan, E. H. F., Kappelle, L. J.,
& Postma, A. (2001). Varieties of human spatial
memory: A meta-analysis on the effects of
hippocampal lesions. Brain
Research Review, 35, 295-303, available via: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(01)00058-3
Kessels, R. P. C., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & De
Haan, E. H. F. (2002). Selective impairments in
object-location binding, metric encoding and
their integration after ischaemic stroke. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
24, 115-129.
Kimura, D. (1996). Sex, sexual orientation and sex
hormones influence human cognitive function.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 259-263,
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S09594388(96)80081-X
Lawton, A. C., & Hatcher, D. W. (2005). Gender
differences in integration of images in
visuospatial memory. Sex Roles, 53, (10),
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199005-7736-1
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Taylor, A., & Langrock,
A. (1999). Early sex differences in spatial skill.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 940-949,
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00121649.35.4.940
Levine, S. C., Vasilyeva, M., Lourenco, F.,
Newcombe, N., & Huttenlocher, J. (2005).
Socioeconomic status modifies the sex in
spatial skill. Psychological Science, 16, 841845, available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2005.01623.x
Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2008). Sex differences in
mental arithmetic, digit span, and g defined
as working memory capacity. Intelligence,
37, 226-235, available via: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.002
Logie, R. (1995), Visuo-spatial working
memory, Essays in Cognitive Psychology.
pp. 126-131, Hove (UK): Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Logie, R. H., & Pearson, D. G. (1997). The inner eye
and the inner scribe of visuo-spatial working
memory: Evidence from developmental
fractionation. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 9, 241-257.
neuroscan (1995). STIM (Version 2.0). El paso,
Texas, USA: neuroscan Technical Support, Inc.
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
Sex differences in children’s visuospatial sketchpad
Palmer, S. (2000). Working memory: A
developmental study of phonological recoding.
Memory, 8, 179–193, available via: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/096582100387597
Pickering, S. J. (2001). The development of
visuo-spatial working memory, Memory,
9, 423–432, available via: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09658210143000182
Pickering, S. J., Gathercole, S.E., Hall, M., & Lloyd,
S. A. (2001). Development of memory for
pattern and path: Further evidence for the
fractionation of visuo-spatial memory. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
54, 397-420.
Postma, A. (2000). Taxonomy of spatial memory
processes. Cognitive Processing. (ICSC 2000),
52.
Postma, A., Jager, G., Kessels, R. P. C.,
Koppeschaar, P. F. H., & van Honk, J. (2004).
Sex differences for selective forms of spatial
memory. Brain and Cognition, 54, 24-34,
available
via:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0278-2626(03)00238-0
Rahman, Q., Bakare, M., & Serinsu, C. (2011). No
sex differences in spatial location memory for
abstract designs. Brain Cognition, 76, (1), 1519, available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
bandc.2011.03.012
Robert, M., & Savoie, N. (2006). Are there
gender differences in verbal and visuospatial
working memory resources? European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18
(3), 378-397, available via: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/09541440500234104
Sánchez, F. J., Tabullo, A. J., Marro, C., Sánchez,
M. L., Yorio, A. A., & Segura, E. (2009). Efectos
del desarrollo en la memoria de trabajo y el
aprendizaje de categorías en niños. Anuario de
Investigaciones, 16, 307-312.
Singh, B., & Mishra, S. (2004). Effects of gender and
type of encoding on retention traits. Brain and
Cognition, 54, 24–34.
Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. J. (1996). The
developmental and assessment of a course for
enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills
of first year engineering students. Journal of
Engineering Education, 83, 3, 301-307.
Statsoft. (1984). Statistica (V. 4.5) [statistical
package]. U. S. A.
Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues
Torres, A., Gómez-Gil, E., Vidal, A., Puig, O., Boget,
T., & Salamero, M. (2006). Gender differences
in cognitive functions and influence of sex
hormones. Actas Españolas Psiquiatricas, 34,
6, 408-415.
Tzuriel, D., & Egozi, G. (2010). Gender differences
in spatial ability of young children: The
effects of training and processing strategies.
Child development, 81, 5, 1417-1430,
available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14678624.2010.01482.x
Vuontela, V., Steenari, M., Carlson, S., Kolvisto, J.,
Fjälberg, M., & Aronen, E. (2003). Audiospatial
and Visuospatial Working Memory in 6-13 Year
Old School Children. Learning & Memory, 10,
74-81, available via: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/
lm.53503
Self-reference for authors: 0
Self-reference for JBHSI: 0
vol. 4 num. 2
NOV-2012 / APR-2013
115