The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers
Abstract
Sixty participants were administered spatial ability tests, a verbal ability test, and a visualizer-verbalizer cognitive style questionnaire. Although verbalizers tended to be a homogeneous group with an intermediate level of spatial ability, there were 2 groups of visualizers, 1 with high spatial ability (the spatial type) and another with low spatial ability (the iconic type). To compare the use of mental images by the 2 types of visualizers in solving problems, interviews with 8 high-spatial visualizers and 9 low-spatial visualizers were conducted. The students were presented with graphs of motion and were asked to visualize and interpret the motion of an object. Whereas low-spatial visualizers interpreted the graphs as pictures and mostly relied on visual (iconic) imagery, high-spatial visualizers constructed more schematic images and manipulated them spatially. In addition, we compared problem-solving strategies used by verbalizers to those of visualizers. In contrast to visualizers, verbalizers of low and high spatial ability did not have any clearly marked preference to use visual or spatial imagery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies
Carroll, J. B. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571312 · Cited by 4,121
Image And Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3653.001.0001 · Cited by 1,977
VISUAL IMAGERY DIFFERENCES IN THE RECALL OF PICTURES
MARKS, D. F. (1973) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x · Cited by 1,778
Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999) · Models of Working Memory · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174909.007 · Cited by 1,195
Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543060001001 · Cited by 1,103
Logie, R. H. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315804743 · Cited by 933
Cited by
Singer, S., & Smith, K. A. (2013) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20030 · Cited by 835
Kozhevnikov, M. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464 · Cited by 807
Self-citationWhen is early visual cortex activated during visual mental imagery?
Kosslyn, S. M., & Thompson, W. L. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.723 · Cited by 515
Spatial Visualization in Physics Problem Solving
Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M. A., & Hegarty, M. (2007) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1080/15326900701399897 · Cited by 400
Self-citationThinking About Spatial Thinking: New Typology, New Assessments
Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015) · Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9297-4_10 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E.
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-77
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W2117011390
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 7.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s1532690xci2001_3
- The paper
- Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the Visualizer-Verbalizer Dimension: Evidence for Two Types of Visualizers. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2001_3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.