Evaluating the effect of tangible virtual reality on spatial perspective taking ability

ABSTRACT

As shown in many large-scale and longitudinal studies, spatial ability is strongly associated with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) learning and career success. At the same time, a growing volume of research connects cognitive science theories with tangible/embodied interactions (TEI) and virtual reality (VR) to offer novel means to support spatial cognition. But very few VR-TEI systems are specifically designed to support spatial ability, nor are they evaluated with respect to spatial ability. In this paper, we present the background, approach, and evaluation of TASC (Tangibles for Augmenting Spatial Cognition), a VR-TEI system built to support spatial perspective taking ability. We tested 3 conditions (tangible VR, keyboard/mouse, control; n=46). Analysis of the pre/post-test change in performance on a perspective taking test revealed that only the VR-TEI group showed statistically significant improvements. The results highlight the role of tangible VR design for enhancing spatial cognition.

References

1. Alissa N. Antle and Sijie Wang. 2013. Comparing Motor-cognitive Strategies for Spatial Problem Solving with Tangible and Multi-touch Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI '13), 65--72.
2. Jack Shen-Kuen Chang, Georgina Yeboah, Alison Doucette, Paul Clifton, Michael Nitsche, Timothy Welsh, and Ali Mazalek. 2017. TASC: Combining Virtual Reality with Tangible and Embodied Interactions to Support Spatial Cognition. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17), 1239--1251.
3. Paul G. Clifton, Jack Shen-Kuen Chang, Georgina Yeboah, Alison Doucette, Sanjay Chandrasekharan, Michael Nitsche, Timothy Welsh, and Ali Mazalek. 2016. Design of embodied interfaces for engaging spatial cognition. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1, 1: 24.
4. Rossana De Beni, Francesca Pazzaglia, and Simona Gardini. 2006. The role of mental rotation and age in spatial perspective-taking tasks: when age does not impair perspective-taking performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20, 6: 807--821.
5. Andreas Dünser, Karin Steinbügl, Hannes Kaufmann, and Judith Glück. 2006. Virtual and Augmented Reality As Spatial Ability Training Tools. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand Chapter's International Conference on Computer-human Interaction: Design Centered HCI (CHINZ '06), 125--132.
6. John Eliot. 2002. About Spatial Intelligence: I. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94, 2: 479--486.
7. Augusto Esteves, Saskia Bakker, Alissa N. Antle, Aaron May, Jillian Warren, and Ian Oakley. 2015. The ATB Framework: Quantifying and Classifying Epistemic Strategies in Tangible Problem-Solving Tasks. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15), 13--20.
8. Andrea Frick, Wenke Möhring, and Nora S. Newcombe. 2014. Picturing perspectives: development of perspective-taking abilities in 4- to 8-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
9. Roland Guay. 1976. Purdue Spatial Vizualization Test. Educational testing service.
10. M Hegarty, M Kozhevnikov, and D Waller. 2008. Perspective taking/spatial orientation test. University California Santa Barbara. Retreived from: http://spatiallearning.org/resource-info/Spatial_Ability_Tests/PTSOT.pdf.
11. Mary Hegarty, Daniel R. Montello, Anthony E. Richardson, Toru Ishikawa, and Kristin Lovelace. 2006. Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence 34, 2: 151--176.
12. Mary Hegarty and David Waller. 2004. A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence 32, 2: 175--191.
13. Marja van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, Iliada Elia, and Alexander Robitzsch. 2015. Kindergartners' performance in two types of imaginary perspective-taking. ZDM 47, 3: 345--362.
14. B Hommel, J Musseler, G Aschersleben, and W. Prinz. 2001. The Theory of Event Coding: a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 849--878.
15. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a Grip on Tangible Interaction: A Framework on Physical Space and Social Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), 437--446.
16. Robert J.K. Jacob, Audrey Girouard, Leanne M. Hirshfield, Michael S. Horn, Orit Shaer, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Jamie Zigelbaum. 2008. Reality-based Interaction: A Framework for post-WIMP Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08), 201--210.
17. Mi Jeong Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2008. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies 29, 3: 222--253.
18. Mi Jeong Kim and Mary Lou Maher. 2008. The Impact of Tangible User Interfaces on Designers' Spatial Cognition. Human-Computer Interaction 23, 2: 101--137.
19. David Kirsh and Paul Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18, 4: 513--549.
20. Günther Knoblich and Rüdiger Flach. 2001. Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science 12, 6: 467--472.
21. Günther Knoblich and Wolfgang Prinz. 2001. Recognition of self-generated actions from kinematic displays of drawing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance 27, 2: 456.
22. Keith R. Lohse, Courtney G. E. Hilderman, Katharine L. Cheung, Sandy Tatla, and H. F. Machiel Van der Loos. 2014. Virtual Reality Therapy for Adults Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Exploring Virtual Environments and Commercial Games in Therapy. PLOS ONE 9, 3: e93318.
23. C. Lorenzini, M. Carrozzino, C. Evangelista, F. Tecchia, M. Bergamasco, and A. Angeletaki. 2015. A Virtual Laboratory An immersive VR experience to spread ancient libraries heritage. In 2015 Digital Heritage, 639--642.
24. Sandra C. Lozano, Bridgette Martin Hard, and Barbara Tversky. 2007. Putting action in perspective. Cognition 103, 3: 480--490.
25. David Lubinski and Camilla Persson Benbow. 2006. Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth After 35 Years: Uncovering Antecedents for the Development of Math-Science Expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1, 4: 316--345.
26. Ali Mazalek, Sanjay Chandrasekharan, Michael Nitsche, Tim Welsh, Paul Clifton, Andrew Quitmeyer, Firaz Peer, Friedrich Kirschner, and Dilip Athreya. 2011. I'M in the Game: Embodied Puppet Interface Improves Avatar Control. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '11), 129--136.
27. Maurice Merleau-Ponty. 1996. Phenomenology of perception. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe.
28. Nora Newcombe. 1989. The Development of Spatial Perspective Taking. In Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Hayne W. Reese (ed.). JAI, 203--247. Retrieved November 27, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065240708604152
29. Jean Piaget and Bärbel Inhelder. 1956. The child's concept of space. Routledge & Paul.
30. Wolfgang Prinz. 2005. An Ideomotor Approach to Imitation. Perspectives on imitation: Mechanisms of imitation and imitation in animals 1: 141.
31. J. Quarles, S. Lampotang, I. Fischler, P. Fishwick, and B. Lok. 2008. Tangible User Interfaces Compensate for Low Spatial Cognition. In IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, 2008. 3DUI 2008, 11--18.
32. Philip Robbins and Murat Aydede. 2009. The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
33. Daniel L. Shea, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow. 2001. Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 3: 604--614.
34. Barbara Tversky and Bridgette Martin Hard. 2009. Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110, 1: 124--129.
35. David H. Uttal, Nathaniel G. Meadow, Elizabeth Tipton, Linda L. Hand, Alison R. Alden, Christopher Warren, and Nora S. Newcombe. 2013. The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin 139, 2: 352--402.
36. Maria Virvou and George Katsionis. 2008. On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: The case of VR-ENGAGE. Computers & Education 50, 1: 154--178.
37. Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow. 2009. Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology 101, 4: 817--835.
38. F. M. Williams-Bell, B. Kapralos, A. Hogue, B. M. Murphy, and E. J. Weckman. 2014. Using Serious Games and Virtual Simulation for Training in the Fire Service: A Review. Fire Technology 51, 3: 553--584.
39. Margaret Wilson. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review 9, 4: 625--636.
40. Tom Ziemke. 2003. What's that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved from http://www.ida.his.se/tom/cogsci03.pdf

Index Terms

• General and reference

  • Cross-computing tools and techniques

    • Experimentation

• Hardware

  • Communication hardware, interfaces and storage

    • Tactile and hand-based interfaces

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • Interaction paradigms

      • Virtual reality