Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks

ABSTRACT

Large wall-sized displays are becoming prevalent. Although researchers have articulated qualitative benefits of group work on large displays, little work has been done to quantify the benefits for individual users. In this article we present four experiments comparing the performance of users working on a large projected wall display to that of users working on a standard desktop monitor. In these experiments, we held the visual angle constant by adjusting the viewing distance to each of the displays. Results from the first two experiments suggest that physically large displays, even when viewed at identical visual angles as smaller ones, help users perform better on mental rotation tasks. We show through the experiments how these results may be attributed, at least in part, to large displays immersing users within the problem space and biasing them into using more efficient cognitive strategies. In the latter two experiments, we extend these results, showing the presence of these effects with more complex tasks, such as 3D navigation and mental map formation and memory. Results further show that the effects of physical display size are independent of other factors that may induce immersion, such as interactivity and mental aids within the virtual environments. We conclude with a general discussion of the findings and possibilities for future work.

REFERENCES

• 1: Kevin Wayne Arthur , Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays, 2000
• 2: Patrick Baudisch , Nathaniel Good , Victoria Bellotti , Pamela Schraedley, Keeping things in context: a comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/503376.503423]
• 3: Booth, K., Fisher, B., Page, S., Ware, C., and Widen, S. 2000. Wayfinding in a virtual environment. Graphics Interface 2000.
• 4: Frederick P. Brooks, What's Real About Virtual Reality?, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.19 n.6, p.16-27, November 1999 [doi>10.1109/38.799723 ]
• 5: William Buxton, Less is more (more is less), The invisible future: the seamless integration of technology into everyday life, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
• 6: Bystrom, K. E., Barfield, W., and Hendrix, C. 1999. A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 2, 241--244.
• 7: Carpenter, M. and Proffitt, D. 2001. Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes. Memory & Cognition 29, 441--448.
• 8: Chapanis, A. and Scarpa, L. C. 1967. Readability of dials at difference distances with constant viewing angle. Human Factors 9, 5, 419--426.
• 9: Childs, I. 1988. HDTV-putting you in the picture. IEE Rev. 34, 7, 261--265.
• 10: Chou, P., Gruteser, M., Lai, J., Levas, A., McFaddin, S., Pinhanez, C., Viveros, M., Wong, D., and Yoshihama, S. 2001. BlueSpace: Creating a personalized and context-aware workspace. IBM Tech. Rep. RC22281.
• 11: Tim R.H. Cutmore , Trevor J. Hine , Kerry J. Maberly , Nicole M. Langford , Grant Hawgood, Cognitive and gender factors influencing navigation in a virtual environment, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.53 n.2, p.223-249, Aug. 2000 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.2000.0389 ]
• 12: Mary Czerwinski , Desney S. Tan , George G. Robertson, Women take a wider view, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/503376.503412]
• 13: Rudolph P. Darken , John L. Sibert, Navigating large virtual spaces, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, v.8 n.1, p.49-71, Jan.-March 1996
• 14: Dudfield, H. J., Macklin, C., Fearnley, R., Simpson, A., and Hall, P. 2001. Big is better? Human factors issues of large screen displays with military command teams. In Proceedings of People in Control 2001, 304--309.
• 15: Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H., and Dermen, D. 1976. Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. In Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ.
• 16: Scott Elrod , Richard Bruce , Rich Gold , David Goldberg , Frank Halasz , William Janssen , David Lee , Kim McCall , Elin Pedersen , Ken Pier , John Tang , Brent Welch, Liveboard: a large interactive display supporting group meetings, presentations, and remote collaboration, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.599-607, May 03-07, 1992, Monterey, California, United States [doi>10.1145/142750.143052]
• 17: Epic Games. Unreal Tournament. http://www.unrealtournament.com
• 18: Flach, J. 1990. Control with an eye for perception: Precursors to an active psychophysics. Ecol. Psych. 2, 83--111.
• 19: Guilford, J. P. 1972. Thurstone's primary mental abilities and structure-of-intellect abilities. Psyc. Bull. 77, 2, 129--143.
• 20: Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S. 1948. The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. J. Appl. Psych. 32, 24--34.
• 21: Guimbretière, F. 2002. Fluid interaction for high resolution wall-size displays. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
• 22: Infield, S. E. 1991. An investigation into the relationship between navigation skill and spatial abilities. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5-B), 2800.
• 23: Hiroshi Ishii , Brygg Ullmer, Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.234-241, March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States [doi>10.1145/258549.258715]
• 24: James Jeng-Weei Lin , Henry B. L. Duh , Habib Abi-Rached , Donald E. Parker , Thomas A. Furness Iii, 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.164, March 24-28, 2002
• 25: Lohman, D. 1979. Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of the correlational literature. Tech. Rep., N.8. Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, School of Education.
• 26: Emilee Patrick , Dennis Cosgrove , Aleksandra Slavkovic , Jennifer A. Rode , Thom Verratti , Greg Chiselko, Using a large projection screen as an alternative to head-mounted displays for virtual environments, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.478-485, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332479]
• 27: Philbeck, J. W., Klatzky, R. L., Behrmann, M., Loomis, J. M., and Goodridge, J. 2001. Active control of locomotion facilitates nonvisual navigation. J. Exper. Psych. Human Perception and Performance 27, 141--153.
• 28: Prothero, J. D. and Hoffman, H. D. 1995. Widening the field of view increases the sense of presence within immersive virtual environments. Human Interface Technology Laboratory Tech. Rep., University of Washington, Seattle, WA, R-95-4.
• 29: Ramesh Raskar , Greg Welch , Matt Cutts , Adam Lake , Lev Stesin , Henry Fuchs, The office of the future: a unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays, Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.179-188, July 1998 [doi>10.1145/280814.280861]
• 30: Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E. Y., and Tatar, D. 1999. The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psych. 1, 1, 49--67.
• 31: Ruddle, R., Payne, S., and Jones, D. 1999. The effects of maps on navigation and search strategies in very-large-scale virtual environments. J. Exper. Psych. Applied, 5, 54--75.
• 32: Shepard, R. N. and Metzler, J. 1971. Mental rotations of three-dimensional objects. Science 171, 3972, 701--703.
• 33: Slater, M. and Usoh, M. 1993. Presence in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference---Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 90--96.
• 34: Norbert A. Streitz , Jörg Geißler , Torsten Holmer , Shin'ichi Konomi , Christian Müller-Tomfelde , Wolfgang Reischl , Petra Rexroth , Peter Seitz , Ralf Steinmetz, i-LAND: an interactive landscape for creativity and innovation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, p.120-127, May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/302979.303010]
• 35: Suzuki, K. and Nakata, Y. 1988. Does the size of figures affect the rate of mental rotation? Perception & Psychophysics 44, 1, 76--80.
• 36: Kishore Swaminathan , Steve Sato, Interaction design for large displays, interactions, v.4 n.1, p.15-24, Jan./Feb. 1997 [doi>10.1145/242388.242395]
• 37: Desney S. Tan , Randy Pausch, Exploiting the cognitive and social benefits of physically large displays, 2004
• 38: Desney S. Tan , Darren Gergle , Peter Scupelli , Randy Pausch, With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642650]
• 39: Desney S. Tan , Darren Gergle , Peter G. Scupelli , Randy Pausch, Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.439-446, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985748]
• 40: Desney S. Tan , Jeanine K. Stefanucci , Dennis R. Proffitt , Randy Pausch, The Infocockpit: providing location and place to aid human memory, Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on Perceptive user interfaces, November 15-16, 2001, Orlando, Florida [doi>10.1145/971478.971526]
• 41: Masayuki Tani , Masato Horita , Kimiya Yamaashi , Koichiro Tanikoshi , Masayasu Futakawa, Courtyard: integrating shared overview on a large screen and per-user detail on individual screens, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.44-50, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/191666.191690]
• 42: Thorndyke, P. and Hayes-Roth, B. 1982. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cog. Psych. 14, 560--589.
• 43: Thurstone, L. L. and Thurstone, T. G. 1941. Factorial studies of intelligence. Psychometric Monograph, 2.
• 44: Tlauka, M. 2002. Switching imagined viewpoints: The effects of viewing angle and layout size. Brit. J. Psych. 93, 193--201.
• 45: Waller, D., Hunt, E., and Knapp, D. 1998. The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 2, 129--143.
• 46: Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 2000. Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. J. Exper. Psych. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1, 151--168.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Screen design (e.g., text, graphics, color)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Graphical user interfaces (GUI); User-centered design

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

Keywords:
3D navigation, Large display, field of view, human memory, immersion, mental map formation, presence, spatial task, visual angle