Spatial Cognition
Fold and Punch Task
Also called: paper folding task, punched holes task, mental paper folding task, spatial visualization task
Measure spatial visualization with sheets generated for each session: a square sheet is folded one to three times and punched, and participants choose how it looks unfolded.
6-9 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 12
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 2
What it measures
Measures spatial visualization with sheets generated for each session. A square sheet is folded one to three times, shown step by step, and a hole is punched through every layer; participants choose, from five sheets, how it looks unfolded.
Constructs
- Spatial visualization
- Mental folding
- Visuospatial working memory
- Non-rigid spatial transformation
Research uses
- Spatial ability research in education and STEM
- Development and aging studies
- Individual differences in spatial strategies
- Within-study group comparison
Scores
- Correct Answerscount
- Items whose chosen sheet has exactly the holes of the unfolded sheet; 24 in the standard session.
- Higher is better
- Accuracy%
- Share of answered test items solved.
- Higher is better
- One-Fold Accuracy%
- Accuracy on items folded once.
- Higher is better
- Two-Fold Accuracy%
- Accuracy on items folded twice.
- Higher is better
- Three-Fold Accuracy%
- Accuracy on items folded three times.
- Higher is better
- Median Correct Timems
- Median time from an item appearing to a right answer. Answers under 100 ms are left out.
- Informational
- Median Correct Time, One Foldms
- The same for items folded once.
- Informational
- Median Correct Time, Two Foldsms
- The same for items folded twice.
- Informational
- Median Correct Time, Three Foldsms
- The same for items folded three times.
- Informational
- Items Answeredcount
- Test items answered.
- Informational
- Answers Under 100 mscount
- Answers given less than 100 ms after the item appeared.
- Lower is better
- Practice Accuracy%
- Share of the three practice items solved.
- Informational
Use and evidence
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 9% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 443 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 0 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 4 |
| 2022 | 0 |
| 2021 | 2 |
| 2020 | 0 |
| 2019 | 2 |
| 2018 | 1 |
| 2017 | 6 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 2 |
| 2014 | 3 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2012 | 6 |
| 2011 | 2 |
| 2010 | 2 |
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 4
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 2
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Item
- A square sheet of 4 by 4 cells is folded, shown step by step: the flap shaded, the fold line dashed and an arrow across it. A hole is then punched through every layer, and the participant chooses, from 5 sheets, how the paper looks unfolded.
- Folds
- Half folds along the middle, side to side or up and down, or along a diagonal of the folded shape, so the flap covers the other half exactly. The punch is a cell inside the folded shape, never on a crease, so the unfolded sheet has 2, 4 or 8 holes.
- Items
- 24 (standard; 12 to 36), 8 each with 1, 2 and 3 folds, in that order. Generated for each session from a seed saved with the data.
- Choices
- 5 per item. A wrong choice undoes one fold along another line through the center of the shape it folded, or turns it half around that center, or else moves one hole by a cell. Every choice has as many holes as the answer and a hole where the punch is, so neither counting holes nor matching the punched spot finds the answer.
- Timing
- No time limit; 300 ms between items.
- Practice
- 3 items, each shown again with the answer marked for 3,000 ms.
Every sheet, fold and choice is generated by ConductScience code; no published item or drawing is used, including those of the test kit of Ekstrom and colleagues (1976), so published norms do not apply. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: paper_folding_item test rows from the scored run, one of five sheets chosen (chance 20%), the answer's place balanced. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One place on 90% of items invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Answers under 200 ms on at least half of the items invalidate.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Number of items | 24 | 12 to 36 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Fold and Punch Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Shepard and Feng, 1972; Ekstrom, French, Harman and Dermen, 1976; Burte, Gardony, Hutton and Taylor, 2019), with the standard settings (number of items: 24). The main score was correct answers (items whose chosen sheet has exactly the holes of the unfolded sheet; 24 in the standard session).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Shepard, R. N., & Feng, C. (1972). A chronometric study of mental paper folding. Cognitive Psychology, 3(2), 228-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90005-9Mental folding times that grow with the folds a judgment needs: the reason items come in order of their folds and times are reported by folds.
- Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. The folded and punched sheet as a test of spatial visualization.
- Burte, H., Gardony, A. L., Hutton, A., & Taylor, H. A. (2019). Knowing when to fold 'em: Problem attributes and strategy differences in the Paper Folding test. Personality and Individual Differences, 146, 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.009Difficulty that rises with folds and with diagonal folds mixed with others, and the counting and matching shortcuts that the choices here are built to defeat.
- Harris, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Understanding spatial transformations: Similarities and differences between mental rotation and mental folding. Cognitive Processing, 14(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-013-0544-6Mental folding as a non-rigid transformation, set beside mental rotation.
Source papers
- Burte H, Gardony AL, Hutton A, Taylor HA (2019). Knowing when to fold 'em: Problem attributes and strategy differences in the Paper Folding test. Personality and Individual Differences, 146:171-181.Paradigm source, Adults
- Harris J, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe NS (2013). Understanding spatial transformations: similarities and differences between mental rotation and mental folding. Cognitive Processing, 14(2):105-115.Paradigm source, Review
- ConductCognition platform normsParadigm source, N/A
Questions
How long does the Fold and Punch Task take?
About 6 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Correct Answers, Accuracy, One-Fold Accuracy, Two-Fold Accuracy, Three-Fold Accuracy, Median Correct Time, Median Correct Time, One Fold, Median Correct Time, Two Folds, Median Correct Time, Three Folds, Items Answered, Answers Under 100 ms and Practice Accuracy. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Fold and Punch Task used in research?
12 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 9% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 443 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Fold and Punch Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 2 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Number of items (12 to 36). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.