The Experts below are selected from a list of 25104 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mary Lou Maher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Impact of Tangible User Interfaces on Designers' Spatial Cognition
Human-Computer Interaction, 2008Co-Authors: Mary Lou MaherAbstract:ABSTRACT Most studies on tangible user interfaces for the tabletop design systems are being undertaken from a technology viewpoint. Although there have been studies that focus on the development of new interactive environments employing tangible user interfaces for designers, there is a lack of evaluation with respect to designers' Spatial Cognition. In this research we study the effects of tangible user interfaces on designers' Spatial Cognition to provide empirical evidence for the anecdotal views of the effect of tangible user interfaces. To highlight the expected changes in Spatial Cognition while using tangible user interfaces, we compared designers using a tangible user interface on a tabletop system with 3D blocks to designers using a graphical user interface on a desktop computer with a mouse and keyboard. The ways in which designers use the two different interfaces for 3D design were examined using a protocol analysis method. The result reveals that designers using 3D blocks perceived more spatia...
-
The impact of tangible user interfaces on Spatial Cognition during collaborative design
Design Studies, 2008Co-Authors: Mary Lou MaherAbstract:The use of tangible user interfaces in new design environments promises to facilitate the designers' interaction with the design model. In order to clarify the impact of tangible user interfaces we compare the design protocols of collaborative design sessions using a tabletop system and tangible user interface (TUI) with a typical keyboard/mouse/display graphical user interface (GUI) to identify changes in designers' Spatial Cognition. We focussed on design collaboration because many tabletop systems are intended to support designers in communicating and developing a shared model of the design. The results reveal that the use of TUIs changed designers' Spatial Cognition, and that these changes affected the design process by increasing their ‘problem-finding’ behaviours leading to creative design.
-
CDVE - Do tangible user interfaces impact Spatial Cognition in collaborative design
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005Co-Authors: Mary Lou MaherAbstract:Developments in digital design workbenches that combine Augmented Reality (AR) systems and tangible user interfaces (TUIs) on a horizontal display surface provide a new kind of physical and digital environment for collaborative design. The combination of tangible interaction with AR display techniques change the dynamics of the collaboration and have an impact on the designers’ perception of 3D models. We are studying the effects of TUIs on designers’ Spatial Cognition and design communication in order to identify how such tangible systems can be used to provide better support for collaborative design. Specifically, we compared tangible user interfaces (TUIs) with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) in a collaborative design task with a focus on characterising the impact these user interfaces have on Spatial Cognition.
Paul A. Fishwick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
3DUI - Tangible User Interfaces Compensate for Low Spatial Cognition
2008 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, 2008Co-Authors: John Quarles, Samsun Lampotang, Ira Fischler, Paul A. FishwickAbstract:This research investigates how interacting with tangible user interfaces (TUIs) affects Spatial Cognition. To study the impact of TUIs, a between subjects study was conducted (n=60) in which students learned about the operation of an anesthesia machine. A TUI was compared to two other interfaces commonly used in anesthesia education: (1) a Graphical User Interface (a 2D abstract simulation model of an anesthesia machine) and (2) a Physical User Interface (a real world anesthesia machine). Overall, the TUI was found to significantly compensate for low user Spatial Cognition in the domain of anesthesia machine training.
Florian Roser - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Spatial Cognition the return path
Conference Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial Cognition: the return path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to return to our hotel! Finding a return path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the return path. One of the most important aspects for the return path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the return path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the return path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the return path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a return path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental Spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the return path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the return paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the return path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: return path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended Cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
-
CogSci - Spatial Cognition: the return path
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Kai Hamburger, Lena E Dienelt, Marianne Strickrodt, Florian RoserAbstract:Spatial Cognition: the return path Kai Hamburger (kai.hamburger@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Lena E. Dienelt (lena-eowyn.dienelt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Marianne Strickrodt (marianne.strickrodt@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Florian Roser (florian.roeser@psychol.uni-giessen.de) Justus Liebig University Giessen, Department of Psychology, Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science Otto-Behaghel-Strasse 10 F 35394 Giessen, Germany goal without being distracted or being led into a wrong direction? Or, would it be better to supplement the verbal description with a map, or maybe make only use of the map instead? This is not only a question of not getting lost (e.g., Dudchenko, 2010), but also a question about cognitive economy, namely, reaching the goal with the least cognitive or physical effort. Let us assume that we successfully reached the goal. We are now faced with a new, maybe more difficult, problem. We need to return to our hotel! Finding a return path is an everyday problem but has rarely been investigated empirically (retrace the same route; e.g., Golledge, 1997, Buchner, Holscher, & Strube, 2007; Papinski, Scott, & Doherty, 2009). We are able to manage this task, but we do not yet know the underlying cognitive and neural processes enabling us to find the return path. One of the most important aspects for the return path is probably the structure of the environment (e.g., structural landmark salience; Sorrows & Hirtle, 1999; Klippel & Winter, 2005). Since we assume visual salience (or better perceptual salience) –that is how much an object stands out from its environment (e.g., Caduff & Timpf, 2008)– and semantic salience of landmarks –that is for example its name, meaning, or function (e.g., Hamburger & Knauff, 2011)– to be less important, we here try to control for these aspects and rather focus on the structural aspects as we have done in several previous experiments on structural salience (e.g., Roser, Hamburger, Krumnack, & Knauff, 2012a; Roser, Krumnack, Hamburger, & Knauff, 2012b). There are two optimal positions for landmarks to be located on a regular/initial path: before the intersection (Klippel & Winter, 2005) in direction of the turn and behind the intersection in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). Most important is that the landmark is located somewhere in direction of the turn (Roser et al., 2012a). But, for the return path, two different positions might be the optimal ones: the positions before the intersection in direction of the turn and behind the intersection opposite to the direction of the turn. These positions are invariant for the return path (they remain unchanged). The other two positions are variant, since they have to be mentally and verbally transformed for the return path (e.g., “before the intersection opposite to the direction of turn” becomes “behind the intersection and in direction of the turn” on the way back). Further details on Abstract The cognitive representation of a return path is a rather unexplored topic including different issues, e.g., perception, mental imagery, mental Spatial processing, and language. We here investigated the return path with landmarks located on different positions (optimal, suboptimal). Participants learned a total of 24 routes and had to produce the return paths (N=20). In a second experiment the different positions plus map learning versus verbal directions were investigated (N=20). Both experiments reveal that the position of a landmark at an intersection (structural salience) has an influence on wayfinding performance. However, the results are somehow ambiguous. Therefore, we also present first approaches for predicting behavior (e.g., optimal route descriptions) and for modeling the perceptual and cognitive processes involved in finding the return path, including visibility, structural salience, mental representation/ transformation, and language. Keywords: return path; structural salience; landmarks; mental transformation Introduction Imagine that you are on a vacation in an unknown foreign city. After your arrival at the hotel you want to explore the surroundings and maybe visit a place of interest or a touristic feature (e.g., a famous building such as the Eiffel Tower in Paris). You may base your search on different means for successfully reaching your goal. You may want to use a verbal description that you received at the reception desk of your hotel, maybe you want to make use of a city map in your tourist guide, or, if you do not have these means at hand, you may want to ask a pedestrian on the street for giving you directions to your goal location. There is also the possibility of using a mobile navigation system. This latter example is part of the debate on “extended Cognition” (e.g., Clark & Chalmers, 1998), which is beyond the scope of this project. Here, the focus is rather on the “innate” navigation system, perceptual and cognitive processes that enable humans to navigate without getting lost (most of the times). In general, wayfinders use so-called landmarks, objects or buildings that stand out of their environment, to aid navigation (e.g., Lynch, 1960; Presson & Montello, 1988; Caduff & Timpf, 2008). Let us return to our initial example. One important question is whether the verbal description is on its own sufficient for reaching the
Jing Feng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
video games and Spatial Cognition
Review of General Psychology, 2010Co-Authors: Ian Spence, Jing FengAbstract:Video game enthusiasts spend many hours at play, and this intense activity has the potential to alter both brain and behavior. We review studies that investigate the ability of video games to modify processes in Spatial Cognition. We outline the initial stages of research into the underlying mechanisms of learning, and we also consider possible applications of this new knowledge. Several experiments have shown that playing action games induces changes in a number of sensory, perceptual, and attentional abilities that are important for many tasks in Spatial Cognition. These basic capacities include contrast sensitivity, Spatial resolution, the attentional visual field, enumeration, multiple object tracking, and visuomotor coordination and speed. In addition to altering performance on basic tasks, playing action video games has a beneficial effect on more complex Spatial tasks such as mental rotation, thus demonstrating that learning generalizes far beyond the training activities in the game. Far transfer of this sort is generally elusive in learning, and we discuss some early attempts to elucidate the brain functions that are responsible. Finally, we suggest that studying video games may contribute not only to an improved understanding of the mechanisms of learning but may also offer new approaches to teaching Spatial skills.
-
playing an action video game reduces gender differences in Spatial Cognition
Psychological Science, 2007Co-Authors: Jing Feng, Ian Spence, Jay PrattAbstract:We demonstrate a previously unknown gender difference in the distribution of Spatial attention, a basic capacity that supports higher-level Spatial Cognition. More remarkably, we found that playing an action video game can virtually eliminate this gender difference in Spatial attention and simultaneously decrease the gender disparity in mental rotation ability, a higher-level process in Spatial Cognition. After only 10 hr of training with an action video game, subjects realized substantial gains in both Spatial attention and mental rotation, with women benefiting more than men. Control subjects who played a non-action game showed no improvement. Given that superior Spatial skills are important in the mathematical and engineering sciences, these findings have practical implications for attracting men and women to these fields.
Michael J Proulx - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
where am i who am i the relation between Spatial Cognition social Cognition and individual differences in the built environment
Frontiers in Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Michael J Proulx, Orlin S Todorov, Amanda Etaylor Aiken, Alexandra A De SousaAbstract:Knowing who we are, and where we are, are two fundamental aspects of our physical and mental experience. Although the domains of Spatial and social Cognition are often studied independently, a few recent areas of scholarship have explored the interactions of place and self. This fits in with increasing evidence for embodied theories of Cognition, where mental processes are grounded in action and perception. Who we are might be integrated with where we are, and impact how we move through space. Individuals vary in personality, navigational strategies, and numerous cognitive and social competencies. Here we review the relation between social and Spatial spheres of existence in the realms of philosophical considerations, neural and psychological representations, and evolutionary context, and how we might use the built environment to suit who we are, or how it creates who we are. In particular we investigate how two Spatial reference frames, egocentric and allocentric, might transcend into the social realm. We then speculate on how environments may interact with Spatial Cognition. Finally, we suggest how a framework encompassing Spatial and social Cognition might be taken in consideration by architects and urban planners.
-
the role of visual experience for the neural basis of Spatial Cognition
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2012Co-Authors: Achille Pasqualotto, Michael J ProulxAbstract:Blindness often results in the adaptive neural reorganization of the remaining modalities, producing sharper auditory and haptic behavioral performance. Yet, non-visual modalities might not be able to fully compensate for the lack of visual experience as in the case of congenital blindness. For example, developmental visual experience seems to be necessary for the maturation of multisensory neurons for Spatial tasks. Additionally, the ability of vision to convey information in parallel might be taken into account as the main attribute that cannot be fully compensated by the spared modalities. Therefore, the lack of visual experience might impair all Spatial tasks that require the integration of inputs from different modalities, such as having to represent a set of objects on the basis of the Spatial relationships among the objects, rather than the Spatial relationship that each object has with oneself. Here we integrate behavioral and neural evidence to conclude that visual experience is necessary for the neural development of normal Spatial Cognition.
