Tangible User Interfaces Compensate for Low Spatial Cognition

1. Tangible User Interfaces Compensate for Low Spatial Cognition John Quarles Department of CISE Samsun Lampotang Department of Anesthesiology Ira Fischler Department of Psychology Paul Fishwick Department of CISE Benjamin Lok Department of CISE

2. ? Education Problem The Virtual Anesthesia Machine(abstract 2D simulation) A real Anesthesia Machine (physical simulation)

3. Hypothesis: Learning Transfer Education Problem • Spatial Cognition • how humans encode spatial information in memory • Low Spatial Cognition can hinder learning transfer across mediums. LOW SPATIAL COGNITION

4. Proposed Solution • Tangible User Interfaces • Merge virtual and real spaces: VAM + Anesthesia Machine • The Augmented Anesthesia Machine

5. Overview • The types of spatial challenges for which TUIs are most beneficial • The populations that experience the most spatial cognitive benefits from TUIs • Methods to identify users that benefit from TUIs

6. Previous Work • Tangible User Interfaces • Ishii 1997 • Ullmer 2000 • Magic Lenses • 2D to 3D [Beir 1993] • AR/MR [Looser 2004]

7. Spatial Cognition • Definition: • how humans encode spatial information • how this information is represented in memory and manipulated internally

8. 3 Scales of Spatial Ability • Small scale (Figural) • External space smaller than the user • i.e. mental rotation tests • Intermediate scale (Vista) • Space larger than the user without locomotion • i.e. the perspective taking test • Large scale (Environmental) • Space larger than the user, requires locomotion • i.e. Navigation of a Virtual Environment • For more info, see Hegarty 2006

9. User Study • How do a PUI, GUI, and a TUI impact spatial cognition? • Focus on a specific spatial challenge: • Understanding and visualizing Invisible Gas Flow • n = 60, between subjects design • PUI Group: the Real Anesthesia Machine • GUI Group: the Virtual Anesthesia Machine (VAM) • TUI Group: The Augmented Anesthesia Machine (AAM)

10. PUI Group The Real Anesthesia Machine

11. GUI Group Virtual Anesthesia Machine

12. TUI Group

13. Hypotheses • H1: TUI users will have less difficulty than GUI and PUI users visualizing gas flow in the context of the real anesthesia machine. • H2: The ability of TUI users to visualize gas flow in the context of the real anesthesia machine will be less dependent on spatial ability than for GUIs and PUIs. That is, TUI training will compensate for low spatial ability. • H3: TUI users are able to understand abstract gas flow concepts, regardless of spatial ability. • H4: The advantages provided by the TUI will be most directly associated with the intermediate, Vista-scale spatial ability.

14. Population and Environment • 60 Psychology students • Received class credit • Knew nothing about anesthesia machines • Conducted in a quiet lab environment

15. Study Procedure (~90 min) (~60 min)

16. Small Scale Test • Arrow Span Test • 15 Sequences • 2 to 6 arrows per sequence • 1 arrow shown at a time • Answered using the numeric keypad Example: 3 successive screenshots Enter Arrows

17. broom cup suitcase keyboard Intermediate Scale Test • Perspective Taking Test • Participant is physically in the room • 4 objects in a square room • Learn object locations Recall Relative Object locations: • Time • Accuracy

18. Large Scale Test • Navigation of a VE • Mouse-keyboard interaction • Training Run • Testing Run • 1st pass – learn layout • 2nd pass – distance and direction judgment • Score: correlation to actual values • Sketch map • +1 point for each incorrect section • 0 is a perfect score

19. Study Procedure (~90 min) (~60 min)

20. Example Question • Q: “Is the exhalation valve unidirectional or bidirectional and why?” • A: “Unidirectional to prevent back flow gasses.” • Requires student to understand abstract concepts about gas flow .

21. Study Procedure (~90 min) (~60 min)

22. Self-Reported Difficulty in Visualizing Gas Flow • Fault test • Real machine interaction without simulations. • Afterwards, participants were asked: • “During the fault test, how difficult was it for you to mentally visualize the gas flows as they flowed through the various components? Rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being very difficult, 1 being very easy.”

23. Metrics • Spatial Ability • Arrow Span (small scale) • Perspective Taking (intermediate scale) • Navigation of a VE (large scale) • Abstract Concept Understanding • Written Test Scores • Visualizing Gas Flow • Self-Reported Difficulty to Visualize Gas flow (DVGF)

24. Groups Compared p value TUI – PUI p = 0.011 TUI – GUI p = 0.045 GUI – PUI p = 0.740 DVGF Results DRVG: 1 indicates easy, 10 indicates difficult. T-tests on DRVG Accept Hypothesis 1

25. Group Arrow Span Nav. Distance Nav. Sketch Map TUI 0.005 -0.120 -0.066 GUI -0.404* -0.553*** 0.618*** PUI -0.539*** 0.139 0.161 DVGF Correlations to Spatial Ability Significance: * is p<0.10, ** is p<0.02, *** is p<0.01. Accept Hypothesis 2

26. Group Arrow Span Nav. Distance Nav. Sketch Map TUI 0.177 -0.111 -0.334 GUI 0.320 0.270 -0.500** PUI 0.614*** -0.012 -0.230 Written Test Score Correlations to Spatial Ability Significance: * is p<0.10, ** is p<0.02, *** is p<0.01. Accept Hypothesis 3

27. Vista Scale Spatial Ability • H4:The advantages provided by the TUI will be most directly associated with the intermediate, Vista-scale spatial ability. • No significant correlations to the Perspective Taking Test Reject Hypothesis 4

28. Interface Benefits • TUIs merge spaces (i.e. small and large spaces) • This merging helps those with low ability in • Small Scale • Large Scale

29. Conclusions • Main Points: • For which types of spatial challenges are TUIs the most beneficial? • Small and large scale challenges • Which populations experience the most spatial cognitive benefits from TUIs? • Users with low small scale or large scale spatial cognition • Methods to identify users that benefit from TUIs • Test both the large and small scale ability • i.e. use both the Arrow Span Test and Navigation Test • TUIs compensate for low spatial cognition

30. Questions? • Please Come to My Talk at VR on Monday • Acknowledgement • NSF Grant IIS-0643557 • David Lizdas • Cynthia Kaschub • Kyle Johnsen • The study participants • The University of Florida

31.   Generalizability

32. Future Work • Enhancing After Action Review