Working Memory
Solid Slicing Task
Also called: Mental cutting, solids cross-section judgment; related literature: Mental Cutting Test and Santa Barbara Solids Test
Measure spatial visualization by asking participants to identify the cross-section of a solid, with scores for its complexity and the angle of the cut.
6-10 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
- 5
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures spatial visualization by asking participants to choose the cross-section made by a plane through a solid. Compares simple, joined and embedded solids with flat and slanted cuts.
Constructs
- Spatial visualization
- Cross-section inference
- Spatial reasoning
Research uses
- Spatial ability and individual-difference research
- Engineering and STEM education studies
How the paradigm works
The Solid Slicing Task measures spatial visualization: inferring the two-dimensional surface made by cutting a three-dimensional object. A blue plane crosses an original solid, and the participant chooses the cut shape from four alternatives. The answer preserves the shape, proportions and boundaries of the materials.
More about the paradigm
A standard session has six practice items with the correct cut shown after each answer, followed by 24 scored items. Three solid types (simple, joined and embedded) cross two plane types (flat and slanted), with four items per combination. Researchers can choose two to six items per combination, giving 12 to 36 scored items. Item order and the position of the correct answer are seeded. Each item stays until an answer, without a time limit.
Overall accuracy is the primary score. Separate scores describe each solid type, each plane type and all six combinations. Correct-answer response time is descriptive. These measures support studies of spatial thinking and education.
Scores
- Cross-section accuracy%
- Correct answers divided by all scored items.
- Higher is better
- Simple solids accuracy%
- Share of correct answers for simple solids.
- Higher is better
- Joined solids accuracy%
- Share of correct answers for joined solids.
- Higher is better
- Embedded solids accuracy%
- Share of correct answers for embedded solids.
- Higher is better
- Flat cuts accuracy%
- Share of correct answers for flat cuts.
- Higher is better
- Slanted cuts accuracy%
- Share of correct answers for slanted cuts.
- Higher is better
- Simple solids, flat cuts%
- Share correct for simple solids with flat cuts.
- Higher is better
- Simple solids, slanted cuts%
- Share correct for simple solids with slanted cuts.
- Higher is better
- Joined solids, flat cuts%
- Share correct for joined solids with flat cuts.
- Higher is better
- Joined solids, slanted cuts%
- Share correct for joined solids with slanted cuts.
- Higher is better
- Embedded solids, flat cuts%
- Share correct for embedded solids with flat cuts.
- Higher is better
- Embedded solids, slanted cuts%
- Share correct for embedded solids with slanted cuts.
- Higher is better
- Median correct response timems
- Median time to a correct answer, leaving out responses under 100 ms.
- Descriptive; interpret with accuracy
- Correct answerscount
- Number of correct answers on scored items.
- Higher is better
- Items answeredcount
- Number of scored items with a valid answer choice.
- Informational
- Anticipationscount
- Answers given in less than 100 ms.
- Review before analysis
- Practice accuracy%
- Share correct in practice from the same run.
- Informational
Use and evidence
5 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract. That ranks it 473 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 0 |
| 2024 | 4 |
| 2023 | 0 |
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2021 | 0 |
| 2020 | 2 |
| 2019 | 0 |
| 2018 | 0 |
| 2017 | 0 |
| 2016 | 0 |
| 2015 | 0 |
| 2014 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 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 D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 2
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Note on the counts: Original solids; published test items and norms not used..
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 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Solids
- Original polyhedral solids: a single solid, two joined parts, or a smaller solid of another material embedded in a transparent outer block.
- Cutting planes
- Flat and slanted planes, crossed with the three solid types to give six combinations.
- Test items
- 24 items, four per combination by default. Two to six per combination gives 12 to 36 items. No item repeats within a run.
- Practice
- Six items, one per combination, with the correct cut surface shown after each answer. These solids are separate from the test items.
- Answers
- Four cut shapes. Click, tap, use keys 1 to 4, or Tab and Enter. Shapes are compared by proportions and internal boundaries; rotation does not change the answer.
- Timing
- No response deadline. A 500 ms lead-in starts practice and test; 200 ms separates item screens. Practice feedback stays until Continue.
- Order
- Seeded item and option order, with answer positions balanced to within one item.
- Scores
- Overall accuracy; accuracy by solid type, plane type and all six combinations; median correct response time, correct and answered counts, anticipations and practice accuracy.
This combines mental-cutting and cross-section judgments using original solids and computed cut shapes. Published Mental Cutting Test and Santa Barbara Solids Test items, norms and validity estimates are not transferred to this version.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: solid_slicing_item test rows from the scored run, four choices (chance 25%), the answer's place balanced. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One place on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the items invalidate. No response deadline. A hidden tab is flagged.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Items per solid and cut type | 4 | 2 to 6 |
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 Solid Slicing Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Cohen & Hegarty, 2012; Munns et al., 2023), with the standard settings (items per solid and cut type: 4). The main score was cross-section accuracy (correct answers divided by all scored items).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2012). Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: A new spatial thinking test. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 868-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.007Cross-section inference and variation in solid complexity and cutting-plane orientation.
- Munns, M. E., He, C., Topete, A., & Hegarty, M. (2023). Visualizing Cross-Sections of 3D Objects: Developing Efficient Measures Using Item Response Theory. Journal of Intelligence, 11(11), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11110205Three solid types, two plane types and online multiple-choice cross-section judgments without a response deadline.
Source papers
- Cohen CA, Hegarty M (2012). Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: A new spatial thinking test. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 868-874.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Solid Slicing Task take?
About 6 to 10 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?
Cross-section accuracy, Simple solids accuracy, Joined solids accuracy, Embedded solids accuracy, Flat cuts accuracy, Slanted cuts accuracy, Simple solids, flat cuts, Simple solids, slanted cuts, Joined solids, flat cuts, Joined solids, slanted cuts, Embedded solids, flat cuts, Embedded solids, slanted cuts, Median correct response time, Correct answers, Items answered, Anticipations and Practice accuracy. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Solid Slicing Task used in research?
5 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract. That ranks it 473 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Solid Slicing Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Items per solid and cut type (2 to 6). 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.