Descriptive Markers for the Cognitive Profiling of Desktop 3D Spaces

Abstract

3D virtual reality spaces, whether running on desktop environments or on immersive displays, have been noted to support a radically new and highly stimulating way of working with digital content in a variety of application domains. At the same time, research in recent decades has produced a number of experimental results showing that the use of 3D, as opposed to 2D interfaces, can lead to performance improvements from a wide range of aspects, including the ability to comprehend and retain knowledge, ability to work collaboratively in more creative and effective ways, and ability to carry out workflows integrating numerous sources of information in less time. In this paper, we first review the relevant literature; then, we describe an exploratory study that we carried out with test subjects, both in a 3D desktop virtual environment and in a 2D web-based environment, while collecting eye tracking data. In the study, subjects were presented with a set of multimedia content on a range of topics within the field of astronomy, based on which they were subsequently asked to fill out a set of questionnaires. By comparing the 2D and 3D cases in terms of correctness of answers, time taken to perform the task, pupil dilation measurements, subjects’ self-reported difficulty assessments, as well as various kinds of high-level interaction patterns employed during the task (in 3D), we were able to identify a set of descriptive markers which may be relevant to the prediction of users’ effectiveness in virtual reality workspaces. In a weaker sense, the results also seem to support previous research works claiming improved effectiveness in 3D spaces compared to 2D web-based interfaces, although further work is needed to more clearly identify the constraints within which such benefits can be guaranteed.

Comparing desktop 3D virtual reality with web 2.0 interfaces: Identifying key factors behind enhanced user capabilities

“…In a first experiment, we compared measurement data obtained from the 2D scenario and one particular 3D space, based on the experimental framework described in Section 3 , and as reported in [89] . The space in which the experiment was carried out was a spaceship-themed environment, as shown on Fig.…”

“…Finally, the experiments themselves are presented in Sections 4 and 5 . Note that the first of the two experiments (comparing one of the two 3D environments with a 2D scenario, described in Section 4 ) has already been reported in detail in [89] ; however, in this work, we have complemented that experiment with a follow-up experiment involving a different 3D space and a greater number of test subjects. Together, the two experiments enable us to perform a principled comparison between users' performance and cognitive load experienced in a Web-based 2D environment and two different desktop VR scenarios.…”

Enhancing User Capabilities While Reducing Cognitive Load in VR: A Comparative Analysis of Desktop 3D Virtual Reality and 2D Environments

“…In Section 4, we present the experimental framework in which we conducted the experiments reported in this paper, while the experiments themselves are presented in the two subsequent sections. In particular, Section 5 summarizes the results of a first experiment which has already been reported in detail in [17]; at the same time, results of this experiment have also now been complemented with more data obtained from users of the 2D interface, to ensure comparability of the 3D versus 2D cases on a statistically more sound basis. In Section 6, in turn, we present in detail the results of a second follow-up study in which a different 3D scenario (but the same 2D scenario) was used.…”

“…Fig.5Layout and design of the 3D space in which the first experiment was conducted, as reported in[17] …”

Aspects of Dynamics in Dialogue Collaboration

“…Sensitivity to the dynamics of interaction is part of the social knowledge that humans have and which robots would need to obtain if they are to be useful in social contexts [19]. Similarly, in that literature, researchers try to understand the dynamics of interaction between humans and other humans and with (and through) computer interfaces [20][21][22][23].) Deciding to adopt or ignore a dimension with potential influence over a response variable is a "top-down" theory-driven distinction.…”