PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Tung Y-H, Chang C-Y (2024) How three-
dimensional sketching environments affect spatial
thinking: A functional magnetic resonance imaging
study of virtual reality. PLoS ONE 19(3): e0294451.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451
Editor: Xiong Jiang, Georgetown University
Medical Center, UNITED STATES
Received: January 19, 2023
Accepted: October 31, 2023
Published: March 11, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Tung, Chang. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The data set
necessary to replicate our study’s findings has
been uploaded to a stable, public repository -
Harvard Dataverse. The relevant information is as
follows: Title: How three-dimensional sketching
environments affect spatial thinking: A functional
magnetic resonance imaging study of virtual reality
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/NXEKBR
Repository: Harvard Dataverse Version: V1.
Funding: Chun-Yen Chang received the research
funding from the National Science and Technology
Council, Taiwan. Grant No. 106-2410-H-002-173-
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024
How three-dimensional sketching
environments affect spatial thinking: A
functional magnetic resonance imaging study
of virtual reality
Yu-Hsin Tung ID, Chun-Yen Chang ID*
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
* cycmail@ntu.edu.tw
Abstract
Designers rely on sketching to visualize and refine their initial ideas, and virtual reality (VR)
tools now facilitate sketching in immersive 3D environments. However, little research has
been conducted on the differences in the visual and spatial processes involved in 3D versus
2D sketching and their effects on cognition. This study investigated potential differences in
spatial and visual functions related to the use of 3D versus 2D sketching media by analyzing
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. We recruited 20 healthy, right-handed
students from the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture with at least three
years of experience in freehand landscape drawing. Using an Oculus Quest VR headset
controller and a 12.9-inch iPad Pro with an Apple Pencil, we tested participants individually
with 3D and 2D sketching, respectively. When comparing 2D and 3D sketches, our fMRI
results revealed significant differences in the activation of several brain regions, including
the right middle temporal gyrus, both sides of the parietal lobe, and the left middle occipital
gyrus. We also compared different sketching conditions, such as lines, geometrical objects
(cube), and naturalistic objects (perspective view of a tree), and found significant differences
in the spatial and visual recognition of brain areas that support visual recognition, composi-
tion, and spatial perception. This finding suggests that 3D sketching environments, such as
VR, may activate more visual–spatial functions during sketching compared to 2D environ-
ments. The result highlights the potential of immersive sketching environments for design-
related processes and spatial thinking.
Introduction
Sketching is an important part of the design thinking process, as it allows designers to visualize
and experiment with their ideas. As Aristotle once wrote, “the soul never thinks without a
mental image” (p. 177) [1]. He illustrates how the visualization of an image is critical to think-
ing. For landscape designers, sketching is an essential way to represent an image conceived in
the mind, which is a critical means of constructing arguments for the design task [2].
1 / 19
PLOS ONE
MY3. https://www.nstc.gov.tw/ The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis,
decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024
How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking
Visualization through sketching helps to improve the creation and manipulation of space and
form and conveys the conversation of imagination [3]. Through sketching, designers envisage
better solutions and possibilities with more precise solution than with creative thinking alone
[4, 5]. As technology has developed, many tools now aid designers in visualizing their sketches.
In terms of sketching media, the tools can be broadly classified as two-dimensional (2D) tools
(e.g., pencil-and-paper and graphics tablets) and three-dimensional (3D) tools, such as com-
puter modeling and VR (e.g., computer-aided design systems and gesture-based interfaces)
[6]. Wu et al. [7] found that digital media has made it possible for designers to produce in-
depth descriptions of detailed designs with the help of related functions in digital media, while
the traditional pen-and-paper environment allows designers to use synthetic and contrasting
methods to manipulate their idea development.
As a type of sketching media, VR has recently become increasingly popular in many
research fields, including environmental simulation, technical operations, and design educa-
tion [8–10]. VR refers to a computer-generated experience that creates a sense of immersion
and presence [11]. It is a powerful tool for increasing design concept generation [12] and oper-
ation training performance [13], and it is widely used in design review visualization media
[14]. The efficiency of VR sketching media for practicing spatial ability has prompted their
increased use in environmental simulations, technical operations, and design-related educa-
tional practices [8–10]. According to the degree of immersion, VR systems can be assigned to
three categories: nonimmersive (desktop display), semi-immersive (screen-projected display),
and immersive (head-mounted gesture display) [15]. Gesture-based immersive VR interfaces
permit 3D environments to create the full virtual sensation of interacting on a real-world scale
through headsets and remote controllers [16, 17]. A recent study by [18] found that immersive
VR head-mounted displays are more suitable than 2D screens for training 3D movements
because they are more motivating to user and easy to operate. Paes et al. [19] also found that
immersive VR systems provide users with an enhanced 3D perception of virtual models and
greater levels of presence compared to nonimmersive systems, which can benefit collaborative
design reviews and increase productivity. These articles suggest that immersive VR tools can
enhance users’ perceptions and understanding of a 3D space while consuming fewer cognitive
resources during mental imaging (e.g., molecular structure, materials, and components) [15–
17, 20–22]. Furthermore, VR tool is considered to provide higher experimental control over
stimuli, with validity as an investigational medium for capturing brain activation profiles [23].
This experience of immersion, interaction, and involvement supports enhancing the percep-
tion and understanding of the 3D space [24, 25].
Research by [26] found that visualization environments that better match human percep-
tual and interaction capabilities to the task at hand improve our understanding of 3D visualiza-
tions. Similarly, [27] showed that using an immersive virtual environment in a design studio
can enhance spatial perception, improve designs, and affect the design process by changing an
individual’s method of thinking in architectural design. Therefore, 3D sketching tools, such as
VR, have great potential for practicing spatial and design thinking in the realm of spatial visu-
alization [9, 10]. A distinguished example is “Foldit” [28], an online game that allows players
to design stable protein structures to advance their understanding of protein folding and pre-
diction. 3D visualization is essential to making this process more accessible compared to tradi-
tional methods, which are extremely difficult and time-consuming.
However, most studies in design-related fields have primarily focused on comparing the
outcomes of practices in 2D- and 3D-based sketching environments, a vital question remained
unanswered in the brain activation caused by using different sketching tools. In empirical
research, the mechanism through which viewing sketches in a 3D virtual environment affects
the brain has been less studied. The current study investigated the differences in brain
2 / 19
PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

activation observed when participants viewed 2D and 3D environmental sketches. The study
did not consider movement or the ability to sketch but instead focused on the spatial processes
involved in viewing different sketching tools and sketching tasks that affect the visual and spa-
tial functions of the brain. This research aims to investigate the neural activation involved in
viewing the spatial sketching process and to distinguish the effects of brain activation caused
by 2D and 3D visual sketching environments.

The role of spatial processing in sketching and its neural correlates

This section discusses the importance of spatial representation in sketching and highlights the
differences between 2D and 3D sketching environments. Sketching involves precise perceptual
processing, especially in a 3D spatial context in which locations and objects play a role in spa-
tial representation. Viewing a sketch involves a complex set of brain processes connected to
perceiving, processing, and interpreting visual information. Sketching with a 3D virtual tool
permits users to create higher-fidelity visualizations of spatial depth and space navigation than
sketching with a 2D tool [29]. When sketching using a 2D tool, our perception transforms and
manipulates the image into a 3D image; the representation of these characteristics depends not
only on the objects’ arrangement, orientation, and perspective scale but also on the informa-
tion conveyed by 2D and 3D spatial transformation views. In contrast, when sketching with a
3D tool, the visualization of the depth and navigation provided by the computer helps the user
visualize the object as a whole [30–32].
Spatial processing refers to the cognitive functions of perceiving, analyzing, and manipulat-
ing information about the spatial relationships between objects and locations in the environ-
ment; these processes are symmetrically distributed in both hemispheres [33]. During spatial
processing, the brain achieves spatial representation through two distinct neural pathways: the
dorsal and ventral pathways. The dorsal pathway, also known as the “where” pathway, is
responsible for processing information related to the location and movement of objects in the
environment. This pathway is involved in forming egocentric representations of spatial con-
text, spatial navigation, and motor planning. In contrast, the ventral pathway, also known as
the “what” pathway, is responsible for processing information related to the identity and prop-
erties of objects in the environment. This pathway is involved in forming allocentric represen-
tations of spatial context, object recognition, and categorization. Both dorsal and ventral
pathways are interconnected and work together to facilitate a complete understanding of visual
information [33–36]. The dorsal pathway is primarily associated with the posterior parietal
cortex and the medial temporal lobe, while the ventral pathway is associated with the inferior
temporal cortex and the occipital lobe [33–35, 37] (Fig 1). The following section explores the
role of attention, navigation, and imagery in the process of viewing sketches.

The role of attention, navigation, and imagery in viewing sketches

While the core spatial processing network is symmetrically distributed in the dorsal frontal-
parietal regions (presupplementary motor area), the anterior insula and frontal operculum of
both hemispheres suggest that attention, navigation, and imagery play important roles in
sketching [33, 38]. The dorsal frontal-parietal regions are consistently implicated in spatial
processing across a range of tasks [39]. The dorsal parietal cortex mediates top-down visual
attention and the selection of stimuli, while the ventral frontoparietal network regulates the
bottom-up orientation of attention and the task-relevant stimuli of visual perception [40]. The
frontal-parietal areas, including both the frontal and parietal lobes, are bilaterally involved in a
wide range of cognitive processes, such as attention, working memory, decision-making, and
motor control-related spatial information [38]. The parietal cortex is responsible for visual–

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 3 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 1. Visual and spatial information processes and functions. Illustration publication number: WW2620UWAC.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g001

spatial attention in spatial perception, and in planning and executing movements, which helps
designers focus on specific parts of the sketch. Meanwhile, the prefrontal cortex is responsible
for interpreting the sketch and making sense of it. On the other hand, the ventral frontoparie-
tal network is responsible for processing object recognition and perception. This network is
closely connected with the inferior parietal lobe, which plays a crucial role in visual–spatial
processing.
To delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms, it is crucial to consider the role of spatial
navigation. Spatial navigation plays a critical role in spatial processing and is closely related to
long-term memory. Recent single-cell investigations have identified neurons that regulate and
encode spatial properties during navigation, including place cells, grid cells, and head direction
cells [41, 42]. Studies have shown that the parahippocampal place area (PPA) is activated when
individuals view or imagine scenes or environments. In particular, the PPA is involved in the
recognition and processing of spatial information, such as the layout and organization of
objects within a scene. This makes the PPA important for visual–spatial thinking and sketch-
ing, as it helps an individual to mentally visualize and manipulate spatial information.
While PPA is responsible for recognizing specific views in environment-based navigation,
the retrosplenial cortex (RSC) converts allocentric to egocentric representations [43]. The abil-
ity to generate mental imagery is critical for sketching, and the RSC is thought to play a role in
mental imagery and the construction of spatial maps [44, 45]. Studies have shown that this
region is activated when individuals are asked to imagine and mentally manipulate objects in
space or navigate through virtual environments. Thus, the RSC is an important component of
the brain’s network for spatial cognition and is involved in a range of processes that contribute
to visual–spatial thinking and sketching.
As we delve further into cognitive processes, spatial memory emerges as a key player. Spa-
tial memory refers to the ability to remember and mentally manipulate spatial information,
which is supported by brain regions, such as the hippocampus [46]. Research have shown that
sketching influence the demand for spatial memory in interpreting or remembering specific

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 4 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

aspects of design [47]. While hippocampus and other related brain regions are involved in
recalling and navigating the physical environment [48]. The prefrontal and anterior cingulate
cortex are critical for the storage and retrieval of remote spatial memories involving parietal
and RSCs during the consolidation of remote memory [49].
The right hippocampus appears to be particularly involved in memory for locations within
an environment, with the left hippocampus being more involved in context-dependent epi-
sodic or autobiographical memory [50]. Robin et al. [51] explored how spatial context plays a
crucial role in the neural representation of events with functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) and showed that the hippocampus and surrounding areas were more active when
events were presented in a spatial context, suggesting that spatial information is prioritized in
the neural representation of events. The use of VR on spatial memory is also related to the
method of loci by which one links their spatial scenario with objects to increase memory
capacity [52].

Spatial ability is influenced by individual factors

Individual factors, such as age, gender, and background, can influence the spatial cognition
involved in sketching [53]. Studies have shown that spatial ability tends to decline with age and
that there is a gender difference, with men typically outperforming women in spatial tasks.
Additionally, research has found that users with different spatial abilities exhibit distinct draw-
ing behaviors in VR, and that spatial ability can impact the shape of the drawing [54]. A per-
son’s spatial ability can be assessed using various methods [55, 56]. Pellegrino (1984) proposed
that spatial ability can be broken down into two major factors: spatial relations and spatial
visualization ability [57]. The Purdue spatial visualization test (PSVT) is commonly used to
evaluate spatial ability, particularly the capacity to mentally rotate 3D objects [58]. The rotation
test (PSVT:R) is a validated test for measuring intrinsic and static spatial abilities, including
psychovisualization and mental image rotation [59, 60]. It consists of 30 items to be completed
within 20 minutes and demonstrates high internal consistency according to the Kuder–Rich-
ardson formula. Researchers across various fields have used PSVT:R to measure individual
spatial abilities. While, in this study, we did not consider spatial ability a major variable, it was
considered a covariate variable.

Materials and methods

This study compared the cognitive effects of using 2D and 3D sketching tools for different
tasks. To observe brain activation related to viewing 3D sketching while also avoiding head
motion, the experiment was split into two stages: sketching-recording and viewing-scanning.
The participants first completed sketching tasks with both 2D and 3D tools in the sketching-
recording. Then, during the viewing-scanning stage, which was conducted separately to avoid
head motions, they viewed their sketches while their brain activity was recorded with fMRI.
The results were then compared to determine whether there were any noticeable differences in
brain activation either when viewing 2D and 3D sketching environments or between the dif-
ferent sketching tasks.

Experimental design
All participants were asked to complete the sketching-recording stage using each setup sequen-
tially, starting with the 2D tool and then moving on to the 3D tool. Prior to the start of the first
stage, participants received comprehensive information about the study and provided their
consent by signing a consent form.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 5 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

The sketching-recording stage involved 1) a spatial task, 2) a tutorial exercise, and 3) six
recording tasks. All participants were asked to complete the first stage before starting the sec-
ond stage. The tutorial exercise lasted approximately 15 minutes and was designed to ensure
that participants understood how to use both tools. During the tutorial exercise, the experi-
menter introduced the 2D tool with manual instructions and asked the participants to draw
horizontal lines, a cube, and an object on the sketching board using a stylus. Printed images
were provided to help clarify the criteria. Next, the participants were asked to use the VR
device and the right-hand controller to draw horizontal lines, a cube, and an object perspective
in the sketching space. Printed images were also provided to clarify the criteria. Participants
were permitted to take as much time as they needed during the tutorial exercise to become
familiar with both setups. All participants successfully completed the exercise within 15 min-
utes. Once the participants were familiar with both tools, the experiment began.
All participants completed six tasks in sequence using the 2D and 3D tools provided in the
experiment. The participants were asked to draw, using each tool, the following three elements:
lines, a geometrical object (the cube), and a naturalistic object (a tree perspective). Starting
with the 2D tool, the tasks were administered in a specific sequence, and participants per-
formed the line task, followed by the geometrical object task and, finally, the naturalistic object
task. Subsequently, participants proceeded to the 3D tool and performed the same tasks in the
same order (see Fig 2). To ensure that the participants focused on the sketching process, the
sketching time for each task was limited to 30 seconds. The 3D setup included a 2019 wireless
head-mounted Oculus Quest VR display (128 GB and 1440 × 1600 pixels per eye at 72 Hz) and
a virtual two-handed controller for use with the Tilt Brush 3D drawing application (Google
Co., 2006). The 2D drawing setup included a 12.9-inch iPad Pro and Apple Pencil (2018) and
the Adobe Photoshop application, which has a functional layout similar to Tilt Brush. Both set-
ups were set to an empty sketching canvas with a white background, and the only available
stroke color was black.
Following the sketching-recording stage, the experimental design progressed to the view-
ing-scanning stage. During this stage, the participants watched the video recordings of their

Fig 2. Sequential 2D and 3D sketching tasks: Lines, a geometrical object, and a naturalistic object.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 6 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 3. The fMRI viewing-scanning stage process in which participants watched prerecorded sketching videos in
pseudorandom order.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g003

sketching tasks while being monitored by a Siemens 3T MAGNETOM Prisma magnetic reso-
nance imaging (MRI) platform at the Image Center for Integrated Body, Mind, and Culture
Research at National Taiwan University. All six sketching videos completed during the first
stage were viewed by the participants in the second stage.
We pseudorandomly assigned the order in which the participants viewed the videos in
three repeated sequences to ensure robust responses. Each sequence included three tasks per-
formed using both sketching tools, resulting in a total of 18 videos (3 tasks × 2 sketching
tools × 3 times), as depicted in Fig 3. The tasks were presented using a block design with inter-
leaved trials to avoid consecutive presentations of the same tool type. This approach maxi-
mized the statistical power and created a different spatial sketching experience for the
participants.

Participants and ethics

The study recruited 20 right-handed students (10 female) from the Department of Horticul-
ture and Landscape Architecture (mean age = 24.4 years; SD = 2.23 years). All participants had
normal or corrected-to-normal vision, at least three years of landscape sketching experience,
and formal training by the university. None of the participants claimed a history of psychologi-
cal, physical, or neural symptoms or injury.
The Behavioral and Social Science Research Ethics Committee at National Taiwan Univer-
sity approved the study, and all participants provided informed consent by signing the consent
form (Ethical Review Approval No.: 201908HM003). Each participant received NT$500
(approximately USD$17) as monetary compensation for their participation in the study.

Spatial ability tasks as cognitive controls

Spatial ability is the capacity to mentally represent, manipulate, and comprehend the relation-
ship between object positions within a visual stimuli [55, 56]. To address the potential con-
founding factor of spatial ability, this study utilized PSVT, as recommended by previous
studies [59, 60]. Data were also gathered to test whether gender and age affected spatial ability.
The study examined the effects of age and gender on spatial ability by conducting a two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA), which considered the impact of both independent variables
and their interactions on spatial ability scores. The results of the analysis are presented in
Table 1 and reveal no significant interaction between age, sex, and spatial ability scores, which
indicates that the effects of these variables on the dependent variable were not interdependent
(see Table 1).
We further examined the main effect of gender and age on spatial ability, and the results
showed no significant difference in spatial ability test scores between males (mean [SD], 15.4

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 7 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Table 1. Interaction between gender and age on spatial ability.

Source of variation SS df MS F p-value Eta value
age 80.51 7 11.5 0.79 0.616 0.442
gender 0.31 1 0.31 0.02 0.888 0.003
interaction 13.68 4 3.42 0.24 0.909 0.119
error 101.5 7 14.5
total 4700 20
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t001

[2.83]) and females (mean [SD], 14.6 [3.72]); t(18) = 0.54; p = 0.59; d = 0.24 (see Table 2) or
based on age (F(5,12) = 1.256, p = 0.347) (see Table 3).

MRI setup acquisition and data analysis

The recorded stimuli videos were displayed on the screen of an MR-compatible image interac-
tion platform using EPrime 2.0 software. MR images were acquired using a Siemens 3T MAG-
NETOM Prisma MRI scanner with a 32-channel head coil.
The T1-weighted high-resolution images were acquired at the following settings: TE(echo
time) = 2.3 ms, TR(repetition time) = 2000 ms, FA = 8˚, matrix size = 256 × 256 × 192, FOV
(field-of-view) = 240 × 240 mm2, voxel size = 0.93 × 0.93 × 0.93 mm3, a bandwidth of 200 Hz/
pixel, and number 192 slices. We obtained the T2-weighted images at the following settings:
TE = 103 ms, TR = 953 ms, FA = 150˚, matrix size = 288 × 384 × 045, FOV = 192 × 192 mm2,
voxel size = 0.66 × 0.50 × 3.00 mm3, and number of slices = 45. This was followed by the 2D
echo-planar image sequences acquired through 252 scans, with TE = 30 ms, TR = 3000 ms,
FA = 90˚, matrix size = 64 × 64 × 45, FOV = 192 × 192 mm2, voxel size = 3.00 × 3.00 × 3.00
mm3, and a bandwidth of 2440 Hz/pixel (interleaved slice order/ bottom up).
Preprocessing. All the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM)
images were first reconstructed into the NIfTI-1 format (.nii) using DICOM import in Statisti-
cal Parametric Mapping tool version 12 (SPM12) [61]. Subsequently, we performed the follow-
ing preprocessing procedure. First, we conducted motion correction (realign and unwarp) to
account for motion artifacts in the fMRI time series. This involved realigning all Echo Planar
Imaging (EPI) scans (each with 252 slices) to correct for translational and rotational motion
for each participant. We used a Gaussian smoothing kernel with a full width at half maximum
(FWHM) of 5 mm. The images were then resliced to match the mean of the image. No wrap-
ping or weighting was applied. We checked the translation and rotation of the x, y, and z axes
of the head center for each participant. According to the SPM list, the acceptable translation
and rotation ranges are both within ± 5 mm. For the present experiment, translation and rota-
tion within the x, y, and z axes were checked, with acceptable ranges set at ± 3 mm. Second, we
conducted slice timing correction to account for differences in image acquisition time between
slices. The fMRI data consisted of 45 slices per volume with TR = 3000 ms. The reference slice
was set as the middle slice (23), and the slice order was bottom up and interleaved.
Third, we coregistered the high-resolution anatomical image to the functional images using
coregistration algorithms. This step improved the alignment of images with the Montreal Neu-
rological Institute (MNI) template. We used the mean EPI image as the reference image and

Table 2. Spatial scores for the independent sample t-test according to biological sex.
Mean df t p Cohen’s d
Male (n = 10) Female (n = 10)
Spatial task 15.4 14.6 18 0.541 0.595 0.242
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 8 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Table 3. One-way ANOVA results for the spatial ability scores between age levels.
Predictors SS df MS F p Eta value
age 84.583 7 12.083 1.256 0.347 0.423
error 115.417 12 9.618
sum 200 19
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t003

the T2-weighted image as the source image, as they shared the same slice sequence and num-
ber. The objective function was set as normalized mutual information with default separation
and tolerances according to SPM 12 settings.
Fourth, to enhance the interpretation of the brain images, we applied segmentation to sepa-
rate the images into cerebrospinal fluid, white matter, and gray matter for easier interpretation.
We saved bias-corrected images to ensure uniform intensities within different tissue types. We
affined regularization to the (International Consortium for Brain Mapping (ICBM) space tem-
plate of East Asian brains for local optimization, and forward deformation was used to normal-
ize the images to the MNI space.
Fifth, we performed normalization, and a more accurate analysis of individual brain images
was modified into brain templates (bounding box = [−78 −112 −70 78 76 85]) with a default
voxel size [3 3 3]. Finally, spatial smoothing was applied to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
We used a filter kernel with an FWHM of [6, 6, 6], which is twice the voxel size, effectively
strengthening the signal and reducing noise.
fMRI data analysis. To examine the brain scans of individual participants while they
viewed various sketches, we conducted a first-level analysis. This analysis employed a t-test
using the SPM Menu protocol and considered six distinct conditions. Each condition involved
a specific video block design lasting 30 seconds, interspersed with resting intervals of 12 sec-
onds. Conditions 1–3 used 2D tools for sketching lines, geometric objects, and natural objects,
respectively. Conditions 4–6 employed 3D tools for sketching lines, geometric objects, and
natural objects, respectively. These conditions were presented in a pseudorandom sequence
within a single session. The general linear model (GLM) was applied to measure the blood oxy-
genation level dependent (BOLD) signal and estimation. The initiation of each block was
determined at a precise time point as follows: Condition 1 = [172 s, 424 s, 718 s], Condition 2
= [4 s, 298 s, 592 s], Condition 3 = [130 s, 256 s, 676 s], Condition 4 = [46 s, 382 s, 508 s], Con-
dition 5 = [88 s, 466 s, 550 s], and Condition 6 = [214 s, 340 s, 634 s]. The realignment parame-
ter was also applied as a regressor to eliminate head motion potential. No predefined masks
were chosen at the p-value of FWE = 0.05 at the extent threshold of > 39 voxels according to
the SPM cluster size threshold calculation [62]. The single-subject results were visualized using
the xjView toolbox (https://www.alivelearn.net/xjview).
For the group statistical inference, we conducted groupwise analysis using the SPM tool to
specify the second-level analysis with the 2 × 3 flexible factorial design [2 (2D and 3D) × 3
(line, geometrical object, naturalistic object)] as coded (A1 = non-VR, A2 = VR, B1 = line,
B2 = cubic, B3 = object). The main effects compared the non-VR (2D) and VR (3D) conditions
with the consideration of spatial ability as a covariate variable. Furthermore, we examined the
interactions among different tools across three conditions, enhancing our comprehension of
how independent variables relate to differences in brain activation.

Results
The goal of the experiment was to assess whether there were noticeable differences in brain
activation when participants viewed 2D and 3D sketching environments. Prior to this, we

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 9 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Table 4. Significant variations in brain activation observed across different areas when comparing 2D and 3D sketch viewing.
Laterality Brain structure MNI coordinate [x, y, z] t-value PFWE-cor Cluster size
R Middle temporal gyrus 42, −64, 5 18.99 < 0.001 1163
L Middle occipital gyrus −42, −70, 5 13.26 < 0.001 1228
L Postcentral gyrus −30, −37, 59 8.89 < 0.001 158
R Parietal lobe subgyral 15, −52, 62 7.15 < 0.001 87

Height threshold: T = 5.07, p = 0.000 (0.050)

Extent threshold: k = 39 voxels, p = 0.000 (0.000)
df: 95

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t004

conducted an initial check to confirm that the participants’ spatial abilities were consistent
across age and gender groups. Furthermore, we categorized the sketching scenarios into three
distinct tasks. The results of our analysis unequivocally revealed substantial differences in neu-
ral activation among participants when they observed 2D sketching processes in contrast to
3D sketching processes. Additionally, we conducted further comparisons between 2D and 3D
sketching environments for tasks involving line drawing, geometric objects, and naturalistic
objects. These comparisons also highlighted significant differences in brain activation, which
will be elaborated on in the subsequent section.

Comparison of 2D and 3D sketching environments

This section compares the participants’ brain activation patterns during their exposure to the
sketching videos in both 2D and 3D environments. It examines any noteworthy differences in
brain activity between these two settings to provide a comprehensive overview of the data analysis
across all trials. As shown in Table 4, when comparing the views of the 2D and 3D sketching pro-
cesses, significant differences were found on the right middle temporal gyrus (MTG), left middle
occipital gyrus (MOG), left postcentral gyrus, and right subgyral (PFWE < 0.05, T = 5.07).
Fig 4 shows the differences observed in cognitive function and brain activation when partic-
ipants viewed the 3D sketching environment. These results support our research hypothesis
that 3D sketching media stimulate different activations of brain activity compared to 2D
sketching media.

Viewing line sketches in 2D and 3D environments

We further focused on examining brain activation differences during the viewing of the line
sketches in both 2D and 3D environments, investigating any distinctive findings. First, the
results of the line sketching tasks (comparing Condition 1 to Condition 4) showed significant
activation of the right MTG and the left MOG when viewing the 3D sketching environment
(Table 5 and Fig 5).

Viewing geometrical object sketches in 2D and 3D environments

While observing the sketching process of geometric objects in both 2D and 3D environments,
significant activations were identified in the right MTG and the left cuneus (Table 6). These
activations were particularly pronounced when comparing the cube sketching process between
the 2D and 3D environments (PFWE < 0.05, T = 6.74) (Fig 6).

Viewing naturalistic object sketches in 2D and 3D environments

Next, we turn our attention to the comparison of naturalistic object sketches in both 2D and
3D environments. As shown in Table 7, we observed noteworthy activations in the bilateral

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 10 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 4. Slice images of comparison of viewing sketches in 2D and 3D environments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g004

cuneus, the MOG, and the right side of the lingual gyrus (PFWE < 0.05, T = 6.74) in the 3D
condition. This finding underscores a substantial difference in brain activations when partici-
pants view naturalistic object sketches in 2D versus 3D environments (see Fig 7).

Discussion and conclusions

In this study, we investigated the differences in brain activation patterns that occurred when
the participants viewed sketching processes in both 2D and 3D environments across various
sketching tasks. Our findings unveiled significant disparities in brain activity when partici-
pants experienced sketching in 3D versus 2D environments. The disparities were particularly
apparent in regions such as the right MTG, left MOG, left postcentral gyrus, and right parietal
lobe. These observations revealed the intricate interplay between visual, spatial, and motor
brain activation associated with 3D sketching tools, specifically in the temporal and occipital
gyrus regions. Furthermore, a deeper examination of different sketching conditions revealed
nuanced variations in neural activation. Specifically, under the line condition, significant acti-
vations were observed in the right MTG and left MOG in the 3D environment as opposed to
the lack of activation observed in these areas under the same condition in the 2D condition.

Table 5. Results of the ANOVA comparing line conditions in the 2D and 3D sketching environments.
Laterality Brain structure MNI coordinate x, y, z (mm) t-value PFWE-cor Cluster size
R Middle temporal gyrus 45, −64, 5 13.22 < 0.001 81
L Middle occipital gyrus −45, −76, 5 10.18 < 0.001 43

Height threshold: T = 6.84, p = 0.000 (0.050)

Extent threshold: k = 39 voxels, p = 0.000 (0.000)
df: 19

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t005

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 11 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 5. The slice images revealed significant activation in viewing the line sketching process when comparing the 2D and 3D
environments.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g005

Meanwhile, the geometrical condition and the naturalistic condition both yielded activations
in the cuneus. These observations offer a more detailed understanding of how sketching with
different content in a 3D sketching environment elicits different neural activations during
visual and spatial processes as compared to 2D sketching environment.
The activation of the right MTG is known for its role in semantic memory processing, mul-
timodal sensory integration, and spatial processing [63]. Furthermore, research has shown
that MTG is necessary for forming nonsalient, novel, and creative insights [64]. Our findings
suggest that viewing linear and geometrical object sketches in 3D environments may involve
similar brain activation, while 3D freehand sketching is less related to accuracy than to the
relationships between shapes and space.
The MOG is involved in early visual processing and is associated with basic visual percep-
tion [65]. During the line condition and naturalistic object condition, but not in the geometri-
cal object condition, the MOG played a critical role when the participants viewed the sketch in
a 3D environment. While the MOG was more pronounced when viewing natural objects in
3D than when viewing them in 2D, it was still involved significantly in the spatial tasks, such as
sketching in the virtual space. Furthermore, the cuneus and the lingual gyrus, which are

Table 6. Brain region differences when viewing the cube sketch: 2D vs 3D environment.
Laterality Brain structure MNI coordinate x, y, z (mm) t-value P-FWE-cor Cluster size
R Middle temporal gyrus 45, −64, 5 13.54 < 0.001 73
L Cuneus −21, −85, 32 9.06 < 0.001 49

Height threshold: T = 6.74, p = 0.000 (0.050)

Extent threshold: k = 39 voxels, p = 0.000 (0.000)
df: 19

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t006

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 12 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 6. Slice images revealing areas of significant brain activation during the viewing of cube sketches, comparing 2D and 3D
environments.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g006

involved in basic visual–spatial processing [66], were also critical areas in 3D object sketching
but not in 3D line sketching. While the cuneus is known to receive basic visual–spatial infor-
mation from the retina [67], our study showed that the 3D sketching environment of both geo-
metrical and naturalistic objects demands higher visual–spatial cognition.
The parietal lobe is crucial for spatial tracking [68], depth perception [69], stereopsis [70],
and egocentric spatial representation in the dorsal pathway. Activation of the postcentral gyrus
may also be linked to the feeling of presence and vividness or interactivity experienced by an
individual in a 3D sketching environment [71]. These regions emphasize the complexity of 3D
sketching processes and their connection to visual–spatial cognition functions. Contrary to
our expectations, across all conditions, the PPA and RSC did not have a significant impact on
the 3D sketching environment compared to the 2D environment. According to previous find-
ings [72], we considered that this may be related to the fact that our sketching space setting did
not provide enough scene features and elements.

Table 7. Visual and spatial brain response mechanisms: Viewing object sketch in 2D and 3D.
Laterality Brain structure MNI coordinate x, y, z (mm) t-value PFWE Cluster size
L Cuneus −12, −94, 20 16.68 < 0.001 254
R Middle occipital gyrus 45, −67, 2 14.59 < 0.001 62
R Cuneus 21, −88, 26 11.54 < 0.001 96
R Lingual gyrus 6, −73, −1 10.17 < 0.001 130
L Middle occipital gyrus −42, −70, 5 8.7 < 0.001 41

Height threshold: T = 6.74, p = 0.000 (0.050)

Extent threshold: k = 39 voxels, p = 0.000 (0.000)
df: 19

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.t007

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 13 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 7. Slice images comparing object sketching processes viewed in 2D and 3D environments.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g007

Given the immersive and navigational aspects of 3D sketching tools, they have great poten-
tial to enhance spatial experiences and sensory engagement in 3D environments. Our study
answers the research question by demonstrating that viewing sketching processes in 2D and
3D environments results in different visual and spatial brain activations. Moreover, our study
reaffirms that different sketching objects in a 3D sketching setting demand higher visual and
spatial cognition. These findings emphasize the role of 3D spatial sketching tools and highlight
their ability to activate specific neural processes.
Furthermore, our findings offer novel insights into the impact of a 3D tool on creative spa-
tial thinking, exemplified by a comparison to freehand sketching. Previous literature has dis-
cussed how sketching can be used as a thinking tool to externalize concepts, explore ideas, and
solve problems [73]. We further extend our horizon to the concept of “R-mode thinking,”
which refers to a creative, holistic, and intuitive way of thinking [74]. When individuals sketch
in a 3D sketching environment, they may enhance their ability to perceive and understand the
spatial relationship between immersion and the feeling of presence on a different scale. When
tapping into their “R-mode thinking,” it is clear that the thinking focus shifts away from pre-
cise details and more toward visual and spatial perceptions. This finding implies that the “R-
mode” system of thinking plays a significant role when individuals work with 3D sketching
tools. Future research could aim to establish behavioral correlations with neural activity to
explore how sketching in a 3D environment might elicit R-mode thinking during sketching
processes, thus affecting spatial perception and creativity in design.
While our study provides valuable insights, it has limitations that require acknowledgment.
To enhance the applicability of our findings, future research should use upgraded hardware
and diverse experimental designs, including behavioral data. Additionally, our study mainly
focused on landscape design students. Expanding the research to untrained individuals or
other academic disciplines can broaden its relevance. Future research should also delve into
the intricate relationship between brain activity and behavior, especially in the context of

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 14 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Fig 8. Differences in brain activation when viewing 2D and 3D sketching environments. Illustration publication number: IN2620T6E1.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451.g008

spatial thinking, to reveal practical implications. Furthermore, exploring the potential of

immersive VR technologies for creating lifelike representations of complex structures holds
promise for future studies in this field.
In conclusion, our study underscores the cognitive advantages associated with the use of
3D VR sketching tools, which elicit enhanced visual and spatial brain activation compared to
traditional 2D tools. These insights hold substantial promise for advancing design thinking
and have implications for future developments in spatial thinking and VR-based design
sketching. Furthermore, our study provides neural evidence of brain activation during 3D
sketching, as depicted in Fig 8. Moving forward, it is imperative for future research to establish
links between this neural activity and behavioral outcomes, thereby facilitating a more com-
prehensive understanding of the impact of 3D sketching on cognitive processes.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the participants for the effort and time they devoted to the experiment.
Special thanks to the team members at the Imaging Center for Integrated Body, Mind, and
Culture Research at National Taiwan University for assisting with the fMRI investigation and
for their contributions to the present analysis.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.
Data curation: Yu-Hsin Tung.
Formal analysis: Yu-Hsin Tung.
Funding acquisition: Chun-Yen Chang.
Investigation: Yu-Hsin Tung.
Methodology: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.
Project administration: Chun-Yen Chang.
Resources: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.
Software: Yu-Hsin Tung.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 15 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

Supervision: Chun-Yen Chang.

Validation: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.
Visualization: Yu-Hsin Tung.
Writing – original draft: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.
Writing – review & editing: Yu-Hsin Tung, Chun-Yen Chang.

References
1. Aristotle, Lawson-Tancred H. De Anima (On the Soul): Penguin Publishing Group; 1986.
2. Goldschmidt G. The dialectics of sketching. Creativity research journal. 1991 Jan 1; 4(2):123–43.
3. Schon DA, Wiggins G. Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design studies. 1992 Apr 1; 13
(2):135–56.
4. Goldschmidt G. Design representation: Private process, public image. InDesign representation 2004
(pp. 203–217). London: Springer London.
5. Goel V. Sketches of thought: MIT Press; 1995.
6. Zeleznik RC, Herndon KP, Hughes JF. SKETCH: An interface for sketching 3D scenes. InACM SIG-
GRAPH 2006 Courses 2006 Jul 30 (pp. 9-es).
7. Wu JC, Chen CC, Chen HC. Comparison of Designer’s Design Thinking Modes in Digital and Tradi-
tional Sketches. Design and Technology Education. 2012; 17(3):37–48.
8. Li R, Xu D. Distribution of landscape architecture based on 3D images and virtual reality rationality
study. IEEE access. 2020 Jul 17; 8:140161–140170.
9. Gutierrez JM, Dominguez MG, Gonzalez CR. Using 3D virtual technologies to train spatia lskills in engi-
neering. The International journal of engineering education. 2015; 31(1):323–334.
10. Rafi A, Anuar K, Samad A, Hayati M, Mahadzir M. Improving spatial ability using a Web-based Virtual
Environment (WbVE). Automation in construction. 2005 Dec 1; 14(6):707–15.
11. Steuer J, Biocca F, Levy MR. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Communi-
cation in the age of virtual reality. 1995 Jun 1; 33:37–39.
12. Yang EK, Lee JH. Cognitive impact of virtual reality sketching on designers’ concept generation. Digital
Creativity. 2020 Apr 2; 31(2):82–97.
13. Wang P, Wu P, Chi HL, Li X. Adopting lean thinking in virtual reality-based personalized operation train-
ing using value stream mapping. Automation in Construction. 2020 Nov 1; 119:103355.
14. Liu Y, Castronovo F, Messner J, Leicht R. Evaluating the impact of virtual reality on design review meet-
ings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering. 2020 Jan 1; 34(1):04019045.
15. Martı́n-Gutiérrez J, Mora CE, Añorbe-Dı́az B, González-Marrero A. Virtual technologies trends in edu-
cation. Eurasia journal of mathematics, science and technology education. 2017 Jan 18; 13(2):469–
486.
16. Burdea GC, Coiffet P. Virtual reality technology. John Wiley & Sons; 2003 Jun 30.
17. Howard-Jones P, Ott M, van Leeuwen T, De Smedt B. The potential relevance of cognitive neurosci-
ence for the development and use of technology-enhanced learning. Learning, media and technology.
2015 Apr 3; 40(2):131–151.
18. Wenk N, Penalver-Andres J, Buetler KA, Nef T, Müri RM, Marchal-Crespo L. Effect of immersive visuali-
zation technologies on cognitive load, motivation, usability, and embodiment. Virtual Reality. 2023 Mar;
27(1):307–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00565-8 PMID: 36915633
19. Paes D, Irizarry J, Pujoni D. An evidence of cognitive benefits from immersive design review: Compar-
ing three-dimensional perception and presence between immersive and non-immersive virtual environ-
ments. Automation in Construction. 2021 Oct 1; 130:103849.
20. Beck L, Wolter M, Mungard NF, Vohn R, Staedtgen M, Kuhlen T, et al. Evaluation of spatial processing
in virtual reality using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and
Social Networking. 2010 Apr 1; 13(2):211–215. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2008.0343 PMID:
20528281
21. Merchant Z, Goetz ET, Keeney-Kennicutt W, Kwok OM, Cifuentes L, Davis TJ. The learner characteris-
tics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural
equation modeling analysis. Computers & Education. 2012 Sep 1; 59(2):551–568.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 16 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

22. Glick S, Porter D, Smith C. Student visualization: Using 3-D models in undergraduate construction man-
agement education. International Journal of Construction Education and Research. 2012 Jan 1; 8
(1):26–46.
23. Reggente N, Essoe JK, Aghajan ZM, Tavakoli AV, McGuire JF, Suthana NA, et al. Enhancing the eco-
logical validity of fMRI memory research using virtual reality. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2018 Jun 15;
12:408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00408 PMID: 29962932
24. Paes D, Arantes E, Irizarry J. Immersive environment for improving the understanding of architectural
3D models: Comparing user spatial perception between immersive and traditional virtual reality sys-
tems. automation in Construction. 2017 Dec 1; 84:292–303.
25. Freina L, Ott M. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspec-
tives. InThe international scientific conference elearning and software for education 2015 Apr 23 (Vol.
1, No. 133, pp. 10–1007).
26. Bach B, Sicat R, Beyer J, Cordeil M, Pfister H. The hologram in my hand: How effective is interactive
exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality?. IEEE transactions on visuali-
zation and computer graphics. 2017 Aug 29; 24(1):457–467. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.
2745941 PMID: 28866590
27. Alatta RA, Freewan A. Investigating the effect of employing immersive virtual environment on enhanc-
ing spatial perception within design process. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural
Research. 2017 Jul 1; 11(2):219.
28. Miller JA, Khatib F, Hammond H, Cooper S, Horowitz S. Introducing Foldit education mode. Nature
structural & molecular biology. 2020 Sep; 27(9):769–70. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-020-0485-6
PMID: 32807992
29. Oti A, Crilly N. Immersive 3D sketching tools: Implications for visual thinking and communication. Com-
puters & Graphics. 2021 Feb 1; 94:111–123.
30. Chatterjee A. The neural organization of spatial thought and language. InSeminars in speech and lan-
guage 2008 Aug (Vol. 29, No. 03, pp. 226–238). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1082886 PMID:
18720319
31. Palmer S. Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In: Rosch E, Lloyd B, editors. Cognition
and Categorization: Lawrence Elbaum Associates; 1978. p. 259–303.
32. Newcombe NS, Shipley TF. Thinking about spatial thinking: New typology, new assessments. InStudy-
ing visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity 2014 Nov 9 (pp. 179–192). Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
33. Cona G, Scarpazza C. Where is the “where” in the brain? A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on
spatial cognition. Human brain mapping. 2019 Apr 15; 40(6):1867–1886. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.
24496 PMID: 30600568
34. Mishkin M, Ungerleider LG, Macko KA. Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends
in neurosciences. 1983 Jan 1; 6:414–417.
35. Biederman I, Vessel EA. Perceptual pleasure and the brain: A novel theory explains why the brain
craves information and seeks it through the senses. American scientist. 2006 May 1; 94(3):247–253.
36. Levy R, Goldman-Rakic PS. Segregation of working memory functions within the dorsolateral prefrontal
cortex. Executive control and the frontal lobe: Current issues: Springer; 2000. p. 23–32. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s002210000397 PMID: 10933207
37. Ayzenberg V, Simmons C, Behrmann M. Temporal asymmetries and interactions between dorsal and
ventral visual pathways during object recognition. Cerebral Cortex Communications. 2023; 4(1):
tgad003. https://doi.org/10.1093/texcom/tgad003 PMID: 36726794
38. Chica AB, Bartolomeo P, Lupiáñez J. Two cognitive and neural systems for endogenous and exoge-
nous spatial attention. Behavioural brain research. 2013 Jan 15; 237:107–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.bbr.2012.09.027 PMID: 23000534
39. Sereno MI, Huang RS. Multisensory maps in parietal cortex. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2014 Feb
1; 24:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.08.014 PMID: 24492077
40. Corbetta M, Miezin FM, Shulman GL, Petersen SE. A PET study of visuospatial attention. Journal of
Neuroscience. 1993 Mar 1; 13(3):1202–1226. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.13-03-01202.1993
PMID: 8441008
41. Spiers HJ, Barry C. Neural systems supporting navigation. Current opinion in behavioral sciences. 2015
Feb 1; 1:47–55.
42. Shelton AL, Gabrieli JD. Neural correlates of encoding space from route and survey perspectives. Jour-
nal of Neuroscience. 2002 Apr 1; 22(7):2711–217. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02711.
2002 PMID: 11923436

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 17 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

43. Epstein RA. Parahippocampal and retrosplenial contributions to human spatial navigation. Trends in
cognitive sciences. 2008 Oct 1; 12(10):388–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.004 PMID:
18760955
44. Miller AM, Vedder LC, Law LM, Smith DM. Cues, context, and long-term memory: the role of the retro-
splenial cortex in spatial cognition. Frontiers in human neuroscience. 2014 Aug 5; 8:586. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fnhum.2014.00586 PMID: 25140141
45. Auger SD, Maguire EA. Retrosplenial cortex indexes stability beyond the spatial domain. Journal of
Neuroscience. 2018 Feb 7; 38(6):1472–81. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2602-17.2017 PMID:
29311139
46. Dupret D, O’neill J, Pleydell-Bouverie B, Csicsvari J. The reorganization and reactivation of hippocam-
pal maps predict spatial memory performance. Nature neuroscience. 2010 Aug; 13(8):995–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2599 PMID: 20639874
47. Bilda ZA, Gero JS. Does sketching off-load visuo-spatial working memory. Studying designers. 2005; 5
(2005):145–160.
48. Eichenbaum H, Cohen NJ. Can we reconcile the declarative memory and spatial navigation views on
hippocampal function?. Neuron. 2014 Aug 20; 83(4):764–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.
032 PMID: 25144874
49. Maviel T, Durkin TP, Menzaghi F, Bontempi B. Sites of neocortical reorganization critical for remote
spatial memory. Science. 2004 Jul 2; 305(5680):96–99. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098180
PMID: 15232109
50. Burgess N, Maguire EA, O’Keefe J. The human hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory. Neu-
ron. 2002 Aug 15; 35(4):625–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00830-9 PMID: 12194864
51. Robin J, Buchsbaum BR, Moscovitch M. The primacy of spatial context in the neural representation of
events. Journal of Neuroscience. 2018 Mar 14; 38(11):2755–2765. https://doi.org/10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.1638-17.2018 PMID: 29440386
52. Reggente N, Essoe JK, Baek HY, Rissman J. The method of loci in virtual reality: explicit binding of
objects to spatial contexts enhances subsequent memory recall. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement.
2020 Mar; 4:12–30.
53. Sanjuán JM, León C, Gordo JF. Factors influencing spatial skills development of engineering students.
The International journal of engineering education. 2017; 33(2):680–692.
54. Barrera Machuca MD, Stuerzlinger W, Asente P. The effect of spatial ability on immersive 3d drawing.
InProceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition 2019 Jun 13 (pp. 173–186).
55. Piaget J, Inhelder B. The Child’s Conception of Space: Routledge; 1997.
56. Gardner H. Multiple intelligences: Minnesota Center for Arts Education; 1992.
57. Pellegrino JW, Alderton DL, Shute VJ. Understanding spatial ability. Educational psychologist. 1984
Sep 1; 19(4):239–53.
58. Guay R, Purdue Research F, Educational Testing Service Test C. Purdue spatial visualization test.
[West Layfette, Ind.]: Purdue University [West Layfette, Ind.]; 1976.
59. Bodner GM, Guay RB. The Purdue visualization of rotations test. The chemical educator. 1997 Oct; 2
(4):1–7.
60. Branoff TJ. Spatial visualization measurement: A modification of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test
—visualization of rotations. Engineering Design Graphics Journal. 2009; 64(2).
61. Penny WD, Friston KJ, Ashburner JT, Kiebel SJ, Nichols TE. Statistical parametric mapping: the analy-
sis of functional brain images: Elsevier; 2011.
62. Phillips C. CyclotronResearchCentre, SPM Cluster Size Threshold. (v1.0) ed. Zenodo, 2018.
63. Cabeza R, Nyberg L. Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. Journal of
cognitive neuroscience. 2000 Jan 1; 12(1):1–47. https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290051137585 PMID:
10769304
64. Shen W, Yuan Y, Liu C, Luo J. The roles of the temporal lobe in creative insight: an integrated review.
Thinking & Reasoning. 2017 Oct 2; 23(4):321–375.
65. Grill-Spector K, Malach R. The human visual cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2004 Jul 21; 27:649–77.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144220 PMID: 15217346
66. Palejwala AH, Dadario NB, Young IM, O’Connor K, Briggs RG, Conner AK, et al. Anatomy and white
matter connections of the lingual gyrus and cuneus. World neurosurgery. 2021 Jul 1; 151:e426–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.050 PMID: 33894399
67. Ward J. The student’s guide to cognitive neuroscience. Routledge; 2019 Dec 6.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 18 / 19

PLOS ONE How three-dimensional sketching environments affect spatial thinking

68. Culham JC, Kanwisher NG. Neuroimaging of cognitive functions in human parietal cortex. Current opin-
ion in neurobiology. 2001 Apr 1; 11(2):157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4388(00)00191-4 PMID:
11301234
69. Breveglieri R, Borgomaneri S, Filippini M, De Vitis M, Tessari A, Fattori P. Functional connectivity at
rest between the human medial posterior parietal cortex and the primary motor cortex detected by
paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Sciences. 2021 Oct 15; 11(10):1357. https://doi.
org/10.3390/brainsci11101357 PMID: 34679421
70. Sack AT. Parietal cortex and spatial cognition. Behavioural brain research. 2009 Sep 14; 202(2):153–
161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.03.012 PMID: 19463696
71. Iachini T, Maffei L, Masullo M, Senese VP, Rapuano M, Pascale A, et al. The experience of virtual real-
ity: are individual differences in mental imagery associated with sense of presence?. Cognitive process-
ing. 2019 Aug 1; 20(3):291–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0897-y PMID: 30569268
72. Köhler S, Crane J, Milner B. Differential contributions of the parahippocampal place area and the ante-
rior hippocampus to human memory for scenes. Hippocampus. 2002; 12(6):718–723. https://doi.org/
10.1002/hipo.10077 PMID: 12542224
73. Leblanc T. Sketching as a thinking process. InDS 82: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference
on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE15), Great Expectations: Design Teaching,
Research & Enterprise, Loughborough, UK, 03–04.09. 2015 2015 (pp. 606–611).
74. Edwards B. Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. InCHI’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems 1997 Mar 22 (pp. 188–189).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294451 March 11, 2024 19 / 19

Copyright of PLoS ONE is the property of Public Library of Science and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.