Working Memory
Rotation Span Task
Also called: RotSpan, automated rotation span, complex span task, spatial span
Measure spatial working memory with turned letters judged normal or mirrored while arrows are held in mind and recalled in order.
9-13 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 16
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 3
What it measures
Measures spatial working memory capacity with the automated rotation span procedure. Participants judge whether turned letters are normal or mirror images while remembering arrows, then recall the arrows in order.
Constructs
- Working memory capacity
- Spatial working memory
- Executive attention
- Mental rotation under memory load
Research uses
- Individual-difference studies of working memory capacity
- Spatial ability and reasoning research
- Cognitive training and intervention outcome studies
How the paradigm works
The rotation span task measures spatial working memory capacity: keeping a series of arrows in mind while judging turned letters. On each item the participant sees a letter, F, G or R, turned by 0 to 315 degrees in steps of 45 degrees, clicks Continue, and then answers whether it was a normal letter or a mirror image. After a 500 ms blank, an arrow to remember shows for 1,000 ms: short or long, pointing in one of eight directions. After each set, the participant clicks the arrows in the order shown on a wheel of all 16 arrows, using a Blank button for any arrow they forgot.
More about the paradigm
The task follows Kane and colleagues (2004), after Shah and Miyake (1996), in the automated complex span procedure (Unsworth et al. 2005; Foster et al. 2015). Practice has three parts: arrows only, 15 letters only, and both together. The letter practice sets each participant's time limit for later letters at their mean time plus 2.5 standard deviations. The test has 12 sets, three each of 2 to 5 arrows in random order, for 42 letters and 42 arrows; a setting gives one or two sets of each size instead. Each arrow shows for 1,000 ms, adjustable from 500 to 1500 ms. A letter that runs past the time limit counts as a speed error and the task moves on to the arrow.
The letters and arrows are drawn by the task's own code, so they look the same on every screen and in every language. Half the letters shown are mirror images, and each letter and angle appears about equally often. Every arrow is used about equally often, and no arrow appears twice in a set.
The main score is the partial span score: arrows recalled in the correct position with both direction and length right, 0 to 42. The absolute span score, letter accuracy, speed and accuracy errors, and recall at each set size are also reported. Sessions with letter accuracy below 85% are flagged. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Partial Span Scorecount
- Arrows recalled in the correct position across all sets, with direction and length both right (0 to 42 at the standard settings).
- Higher is better
- Absolute Span Scorecount
- Sum of set sizes for sets recalled perfectly.
- Higher is better
- Partial-Credit Unit Score%
- Mean proportion of arrows recalled in the correct position per set.
- Higher is better
- Letter Accuracy%
- Letters judged correctly within the time limit, out of all letters shown.
- Below 0.85 flags the session
- Letter Errorscount
- Speed errors plus accuracy errors.
- Lower is better
- Speed Errorscount
- Letters not answered within the participant's time limit.
- Lower is better
- Accuracy Errorscount
- Letters judged wrongly as normal or mirrored.
- Lower is better
- Low Letter Accuracyflag
- 1 when letter accuracy is below 85%; review before analysis.
- Informational
- Recall, Sets of 2%
- Proportion of arrows recalled in the correct position in sets of 2.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 3%
- Proportion of arrows recalled in the correct position in sets of 3.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 4%
- Proportion of arrows recalled in the correct position in sets of 4.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 5%
- Proportion of arrows recalled in the correct position in sets of 5.
- Higher is better
- Median Letter Timems
- Median time looking at a letter before clicking Continue, for letters answered within the time limit.
- Context for the time limit
- Letter Time Limitms
- The participant's time limit per letter: mean practice time plus 2.5 SD.
- Informational
Use and evidence
16 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 346 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 5 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2023 | 2 |
| 2022 | 4 |
| 2021 | 4 |
| 2020 | 0 |
| 2019 | 6 |
| 2018 | 3 |
| 2017 | 7 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 2 |
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2012 | 1 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 9
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 3
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 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Letters
- F, G and R, normal or mirror image, turned by 0 to 315 degrees in steps of 45. Half the letters shown are mirror images.
- Arrows
- Short or long, pointing in one of eight directions: 16 arrows, each used about equally often and never twice in a set. A 500 ms blank, then each arrow for 1,000 ms (standard; 500 to 1,500).
- Sets
- 12 sets, three each of 2 to 5 arrows in random order: 42 arrows and 42 letters (standard; one to three sets of each size).
- Judgment
- After looking at the letter, the participant clicks Continue, then Normal or Mirrored.
- Time limit
- Each participant's mean time per letter in letter practice plus 2.5 standard deviations. A letter not answered in time is a speed error.
- Recall
- Click the arrows in order on a wheel of all 16 arrows, with a Blank button for a forgotten arrow, then 2,000 ms of feedback. An arrow counts only with its direction and length both right.
- Practice
- Arrows only (sets of 2, 2, 3 and 3), 15 letters only with feedback, then three sets of 2 with both.
- Letter criterion
- Sessions below 85% letter accuracy are flagged.
The letters and arrows are drawn by this task's own code rather than shown in a font, so they look the same on every screen. Published rotation span scores were collected on other versions and are not applied as norms.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: test-phase answers to whether each letter is normal or mirrored (chance 50%, half normal) and speed errors, in the order shown, from the scored run. Letter accuracy below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One button on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Speed errors are missed responses: more than max(3, 25%) invalidate, any is flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the letters invalidate. Letter accuracy below 85% is flagged. Arrow recall is not judged against chance. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
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). Each participant's time limit is set from their own practice times, so a speed error should be rare; more than a quarter signals non-engagement. The automated complex span tasks kept participants whose processing accuracy reached 85% (Unsworth et al. 2005), so accuracy below that is flagged. 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. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Sets of each size | 3 | 1 to 3 |
| Arrow display time (ms) | 1,000 | 500 to 1,500 |
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 Rotation Span Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Shah & Miyake, 1996; Kane et al., 2004), with the standard settings (sets of each size: 3; arrow display time (ms): 1,000). The main score was partial span score (arrows recalled in the correct position across all sets, with direction and length both right (0 to 42 at the standard settings)).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.125.1.4
- Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 189-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189The letters, angles, arrows, display times and set sizes.
- Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498-505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720The automated procedure: practice parts, the time limit and the 85% criterion.
- Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2), 226-236. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7The automated rotation span, its scoring and its reliability.
- Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769-786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772Partial and absolute scoring.
Source papers
- Shah P, Miyake A (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: an individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(1):4-27.Paradigm source, Young adults
- Kane MJ, Hambrick DZ, Tuholski SW, Wilhelm O, Payne TW, Engle RW (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2):189-217.Paradigm source, Young adults
- Foster JL, Shipstead Z, Harrison TL, Hicks KL, Redick TS, Engle RW (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43(2):226-236.Paradigm source, 18-35
- Conway ARA, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5):769-786.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Rotation Span Task take?
About 9 to 13 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?
Partial Span Score, Absolute Span Score, Partial-Credit Unit Score, Letter Accuracy, Letter Errors, Speed Errors, Accuracy Errors, Low Letter Accuracy, Recall, Sets of 2, Recall, Sets of 3, Recall, Sets of 4, Recall, Sets of 5, Median Letter Time and Letter Time Limit. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Rotation Span Task used in research?
16 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 346 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Rotation Span Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 3 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Sets of each size (1 to 3) and arrow display time (ms) (500 to 1,500). 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.