Differences of Field Dependent/Independent Gamers on Cultural Heritage Playing: Preliminary Findings of an Eye–Tracking Study

  • George E. Raptis
  • Christos A. Fidas
  • Nikolaos M. Avouris
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10059)

Abstract

Based on a large number of different cognitive theories on information processing procedure, suggesting that individuals have different approaches in the way they forage, retrieve, process, store and recall information, this paper investigates the effect of field dependence/independence with regards to visual attention of gamers in the context of a cultural heritage game. Gaze data were collected and analysed from fourteen participants, who were classified as field dependent or independent according to Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), a cognitive style elicitation instrument. The collected data were analysed quantitatively to examine visual attention in terms of fixation count and fixation impact. The results revealed statistically significant differences in both fixation count and fixation impact towards interactive game elements. Statistically significant differences were also measured for specific types of game elements. Findings are expected to provide insights for designers and researchers aiming to design more user–centric cultural heritage games.

Keywords

Field dependence/independence Cognitive style Cultural heritage Games Eye–tracking Visual attention Game design 

References

  1. 1.
    Allinson, C.W., Hayes, J.: The cognitive style index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organizational research. J. Manage. Stud. 33(1), 119–135 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, E.F., McLoughlin, L., Liarokapis, F., Peters, C., Petridis, P., de Freitas, S.: Developing serious games for cultural heritage: a state-of-the-art review. Virtual Real. 14(4), 255–275 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angeli, C., Valanides, N., Kirschner, P.: Field dependence-independence and instructional-design effects on learners’ performance with a computer-modeling tool. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(6), 1355–1366 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buscher, G., Cutrell, E., Morris, M.R.: What do you see when you’re surfing?: using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2009), pp. 21–30. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chapman, D.M., Calhoun, J.G.: Validation of learning style measures: implications for medical education practice. Med. Educ. 40(6), 576–583 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiu, L.-H.: A cross-cultural comparison of cognitive styles in Chinese and American children. Int. J. Psychol. 7(4), 235–242 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coenen, T., Mostmans, L., Naessens, K.: MuseUs: case study of a pervasive cultural heritage serious game. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 6(2), 8: 1–8: 19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cureton, E.E.: The upper and lower twenty-seven per cent rule. Psychometrika 22(3), 293–296 (1957)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehrman, M., Leaver, B.L.: Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System 31(3), 393–415 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Froschauer, J., Merkl, D., Arends, M., Goldfarb, D.: Art history concepts at play with thiatro. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 6(2), 7: 1–7: 15 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamilton, C.J.: Beyond sex differences in visuo-spatial processing: the impact of gender trait possession. Br. J. Psychol. 86(1), 1–20 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes, R.N.: Sex differences in group embedded figures test performance in relation to sex-role, state and trait anxiety. Curr. Psychol. Res. 1(3–4), 227–234 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joy, S., Kolb, D.A.: Are there cultural differences in learning style? Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 33(1), 69–85 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khatib, M., Hosseinpur, R.M.: On the validity of the group embedded figure test (geft). J. Lang. Teach. Res. 2(3), 640–648 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirton, M.: Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 61(5), 622 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maghsudi, M.: The interaction between field dependent/independent learning styles and learners’ linguality in third language acquisition. Interact. Multimed. Electron. J. Comput. Enhanced Learn. 7(5), 1–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mortara, M., Catalano, C.E., Bellotti, F., Fiucci, G., Houry-Panchetti, M., Petridis, P.: Learning cultural heritage by serious games. J. Cult. Herit. 15(3), 318–325 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nisiforou, E.A., Laghos, A.: Field dependence-independence, eye movement patterns: investigating users differences through an eye tracking study. In: Interacting with Computers (2015). doi:10.1093/iwc/iwv015
  19. 19.
    Nisiforou, E.A., Michailidou, E., Laghos, A.: Using eye tracking to understand the impact of cognitive abilities on search tasks. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8516, pp. 46–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07509-9_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., Witkin, H.A.: Group Embedded Figures Test. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto (1971)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raptis, G.E., Fidas, C.A., Avouris, N.M.: Do field dependence-independence differences of game players affect performance and behaviour in cultural heritage games? In: ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY). ACM, Austin (2016). doi:10.1145/2967934.2968107
  22. 22.
    Raptis, G.E., Fidas, C.A., Avouris, N.M.: A qualitative analysis of the effect of wholistic-analytic cognitive style dimension on the cultural heritage game playing. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA). IEEE, Chalkidiki (2016). doi:10.1109/IISA.2016.7785364
  23. 23.
    Riding, R.J., Cheema, I.: Cognitive styles-an overview and integration. Educ. Psychol. 11(3–4), 193–215 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shinar, D., McDowell, E.D., Rackoff, N.J., Rockwell, T.H.: Field dependence and driver visual search behavior. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 20(5), 553–559 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Witkin, H.A., Goodenough, D.R., Karp, S.A.: Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 7(3), 291–300 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., Cox, P.W.: Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. ETS Res. Bull. Ser. 1975(2), 1–64 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E., Karp, S.A.: Group Embedded Figures Test - Scoring Template. Consulting Psychologists, Palo Alto (1971)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • George E. Raptis
    • 1
  • Christos A. Fidas
    • 2
  • Nikolaos M. Avouris
    • 1
  1. 1.HCI Group, Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.Department of Cultural Heritage Management and New TechnologiesUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations