Virtual Reality

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 301–314 | Cite as

Supporting cognitive processing with spatial information presentations in virtual environments

Original Article

Abstract

While it has been suggested that immersive virtual environments could provide benefits for educational applications, few studies have formally evaluated how the enhanced perceptual displays of such systems might improve learning. Using simplified memorization and problem-solving tasks as representative approximations of more advanced types of learning, we are investigating the effects of providing supplemental spatial information on the performance of learning-based activities within virtual environments. We performed two experiments to investigate whether users can take advantage of a spatial information presentation to improve performance on cognitive processing activities. In both experiments, information was presented either directly in front of the participant, at a single location, or wrapped around the participant along the walls of a surround display. In our first experiment, we measured memory scores and analyzed participant strategies for a memorization and recall task. In addition to comparing spatial and non-spatial presentations, we also varied field of view and background imagery. The results showed that the spatial presentation caused significantly better memory scores. Additionally, a significant interaction between background landmarks and presentation style showed that participants used more visualization strategies during the memorization task when background landmarks were shown with spatial presentations. To investigate whether the advantages of spatial information presentation extend beyond memorization to higher level cognitive activities, our second experiment employed a puzzle-like task that required critical thinking using the presented information. Focusing only on the effects of spatial presentations, this experiment measured task performance and mental workload. The results indicate that no performance improvements or mental workload reductions were gained from the spatial presentation method compared with a non-spatial layout for our problem-solving task. The results of these two experiments suggest that supplemental spatial information can affect mental strategies and support performance improvements for cognitive processing and learning-based activities. However, the effectiveness of spatial presentations is dependent on the nature of the task and a meaningful use of space and may require practice with spatial strategies.

Keywords

Virtual environments Memory Cognition Learning Space 

Abbreviations

FOV

Field of view

VR

Virtual reality

VE

Virtual environment

References

  1. Baddeley AD (1998) Working memory. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sci Ser III Sci de la Vie 321:167–173Google Scholar
  2. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook i: cognitive domainGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulos MNK, Hetherington L, Wheeler S (2007) Second life: an overview of the potential of 3-d virtual worlds in medical and health education. Health Inf Libr J 24(4):233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman DA, Hodges LF, Allison D, Wineman J (1999) The educational value of an information-rich virtual environment. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8(3):317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman DA, North C, Chen J, Polys NF, Pyla PS, Yilmaz U (2003) Information-rich virtual environments: theory, tools, and research agenda. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, Osaka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman DA, Sowndararajan A, Ragan ED, Kopper R (2009) Higher levels of immersion improve procedure memorization performance. Proceedings of joint virtual reality conference 2009Google Scholar
  7. Brooks FP (1999) Whats real about virtual reality? IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19(6):16–27MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chance SS, Gaunet F, Beall AC, Loomis JM (1998) Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 7(2):168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalgarno B (2002) The potential of 3d virtual learning environments: a constructivist analysis. e-J Instr Sci Technol (e-Jist) 5(2)Google Scholar
  10. Dede C, Salzman MC, Loftin RB, Sprague D (1999) Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In: Feurzeig W, Roberts N (eds) Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education pp 282–319Google Scholar
  11. Duff SC, Logie RH (2001) Processing and storage in working memory span. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 54(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. Hess SM, Detweiler MC, Ellis RD (1999) The utility of display space in keeping track of rapidly changing information. Human Factor J Human Factor Ergonom Soc 41(2):257–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson A, Roussos M, Leigh J, Vasilakis C, Barnes C, Moher T (1998) The nice project: learning together in a virtual world. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium. Atlanta, GA, pp 176–183Google Scholar
  15. Jones WP, Dumais ST (1986) The spatial metaphor for user interfaces: experimental tests of reference by location versus name. ACM Trans Inf Syst 4(1):42–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennedy MM (1999) Approximations to indicators of student outcomes. Educ Eval Policy Anal 21(4):345–363Google Scholar
  17. Krathwohl DR (2002) A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theor Pract 41(4):212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin JJW, Duh HBL, Abi-Rached H, Parker DE, Iii TAF (2002) Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality conference 2002, p 164Google Scholar
  19. Mandler JM, Seegmiller D, Day J (1977) On the coding of spatial information. Mem Cogn 5(1):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCreary FA, Williges RC (1998) Effects of age and field-of-view on spatial learning in an immersive virtual environment. Human Factor Ergonom Soc Ann Meet Proc 42:1491–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norman DA (1991) Cognitive artifacts. In: Designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface. Cambridge series on human-computer interaction, no. 4. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp 17–38Google Scholar
  22. Pylyshyn Z (1989) The role of location indexes in spatial perception: a sketch of the FINST spatial-index model. Cognition 32(1):65–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quarles J, Lampotang S, Fischler I, Fishwick P, Lok B (2008) Tangible user interfaces compensate for low spatial cognition. In: Proceedings of IEEE 3D user interfaces. pp 11–18Google Scholar
  24. Richardson DC, Spivey MJ (2000) Representation, space and hollywood squares: looking at things that aren’t there anymore. Cognition 76(3):269–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roussou M, Oliver M, Slater M (2006) The virtual playground: an educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning. Virtual Real 10(3):227–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rymaszewski M, Au WJ, Wallace M (2007) Second life: the official guide. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Schuchardt P, Bowman DA (2007) The benefits of immersion for spatial understanding of complex underground cave systems. Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. ACM, Newport Beach, CA USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, O’Brien MK, Bansal IK, Andersen DK, Satava RM, Pellegrini CA, Sachdeva AK, Meakins JL et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236(4):458–464 (discussion)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slater M (2003) A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect 3(3)Google Scholar
  30. Sowndararajan A, Wang R, Bowman DA (2008) Quantifying the benefits of immersion for procedural training. Proceedings of the 2008 workshop on immersive projection technologies/emerging display technologies. ACM, Los Angeles, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Stasz C (2001) Assessing skills for work: two perspectives. Oxford Econ Paper 53(3):385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sweller J, Merrienboer JJGV, Paas FGWC (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 10(3):251–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waller D, Hunt E, Knapp D (1998) The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 7(2):129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ware C, Mitchell P (2005) Reevaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing graphs in three dimensions. Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization. ACM, A Coroña, SpainGoogle Scholar
  35. Wickens CD (1992) Virtual reality and education. IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1992Google Scholar
  36. Wickens CD, Liu Y (1988) Codes and modalities in multiple resources: a success and a qualification. Human Factor J Human Factor Ergonom Soc 30:599–616Google Scholar
  37. Wickens CD, Goh J, Helleberg J, Horrey WJ, Talleur DA (2003) Attentional models of multitask pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human Factor J Human Factor Ergonom Soc 45(3):360–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winn W, Jackson R (1999) Fourteen propositions about educational uses of virtual reality. Educ Technol 39(4):5–14Google Scholar
  39. Yates FA (1974) The art of memory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  40. Zanbaka C, Babu S, Xiao D, Ulinski A, Hodges LF, Lok B (2004) Effects of travel technique on cognition in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality. pp 149–156, 286 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric D. Ragan
    • 1
  • Doug A. Bowman
    • 1
  • Karl J. Huber
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations