Haptic experiences influence visually acquired memories: Reference frames during multimodal spatial learning

Kelly, Jonathan W.; Avraamides, Marios N.; Giudice, Nicholas A.

doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0162-1

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are indications that visual and haptic perception are processed dependently [9] and that vision and haptics share common abstract representations of the shape and structure of objects [3]. Furthermore it has been shown that spatial layouts, which were learned through haptic and visual exploration, are stored within a common reference frame: Haptic experiences were able to influence memories that were acquired visually [8]. Previous studies also revealed that physical objects were recalled more frequently than pictures, and pictures more often than words [2].…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluating the Memorability of Physical Visualizations

Stusak¹,

Schwarz²,

Butz³

2015

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical Visualizations are currently mostly used in casual contexts, e.g., as artistic data sculptures. However, their measurable benefits for traditional information visualization are largely unexplored. As a step in this direction, we compared the memorability of physical visualizations to that of digital visualizations. We conducted a user study with 40 participants in which we measured the recall of three types of information immediately after exploration and with a delay of two weeks. The results show that the physical visualization led to significantly less information decay within this time span. Our results build on known effects from cognitive psychology and provide a first indicator for measurable benefits of physical visualizations regarding memorability.Information Visualization (InfoVis) helps users to explore and understand large amounts of abstract data. While digital visualizations are well-explored, physical visualizations which map data to physical form instead of pixels recently started to attract attention [6,7,11]. Reasons for this are the progress in digital fabrication technologies, such as laser cutters and 3D printers [12], as well as recent developments in the field of shape changing displays (e.g., [4]). The fact that such technologies are becoming increasingly commonplace, prompts further research on how digital and physical visualizations can complement one another and to explore areas in which physical visualizations can have benefits.Jansen et al.[7] compared physical 3D bar charts to their onscreen counterparts and found that physical outperformed onscreen 3D bar charts, but 2D visualizations performed best for all of the tested low-level information retrieval tasks. In their outlook they suggest, that future studies should investigate other factors than pure performance. Figure 1. Static physical bar chart which was used in our study and a close-up on the bars' labeling and the background panel.Visualizations can actually extend human memory [13], and memorability therefore is a frequently discussed topic in InfoVis (e.g., [1,5]). There are indications that visual and haptic perception are processed dependently [9] and that vision and haptics share common abstract representations of the shape and structure of objects [3]. Furthermore it has been shown that spatial layouts, which were learned through haptic and visual exploration, are stored within a common reference frame: Haptic experiences were able to influence memories that were acquired visually [8]. Previous studies also revealed that physical objects were recalled more frequently than pictures, and pictures more often than words [2].All of this suggests that a physical representation, for example of a bar chart, could generate a more detailed representation in the subjects' memory and hence be more memorable than its digital on-screen representation.In a study with 40 participants we compared a physical bar chart (see figure 1) to the same chart displayed on a tablet screen. Memory performance was measured by a questionnai...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluating the Memorability of Physical Visualizations

Stusak¹,

Schwarz²,

Butz³

2015

Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…structure of the layout (e.g., Mou & McNamara, 2002), the presence of environmental structure (e.g., Kelly, Avraamides, & Giudice, 2011), and experimental instructions (Greenauer & Waller, 2008). In fact, people weigh multiple cues that are available at the time of encoding, in order to select a reference frame .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The protagonist's first perspective influences the encoding of spatial information in narratives

Hatzipanayioti

Galati

Avraamides

2016

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the first-perspective alignment effect that is observed when retrieving spatial information from memory about described environments. Participants read narratives that described the viewpoint of a protagonist in fictitious environments and then pointed to the memorized locations of described objects from imagined perspectives. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 showed that performance was best when participants responded from the protagonist's first perspective even though object locations were described from a different perspective. In Experiment 3, in which participants were physically oriented with the perspective used to describe object locations, performance from that description perspective was better than that from the protagonist's first perspective, which was, in turn, better than performance from other perspectives. These findings suggest that when reading narratives, people default to using a reference frame that is aligned with their own facing direction, although physical movement may facilitate retrieval from other perspectives.

show abstract

“…People also show equivalent performance across source modalities when making judgments of relative direction from imagined perspectives (Avraamides, Loomis, Klatzky & Golledge, 2004;Giudice et al, 2009;Kelly, Avraamides, & Giudice, 2011).…”

Section: The Spatial Imagementioning

confidence: 85%

Combining Locations from Working Memory and Long-Term Memory into a Common Spatial Image

Giudice

Klatzky

Bennett

et al. 2013

Spatial Cognition & Computation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research uses a novel integration paradigm to investigate whether target locations read in from long-term memory (LTM) differ from perceptually encoded inputs in spatial working-memory (SWM) with respect to systematic spatial error and/or noise, and whether SWM can simultaneously encompass both of these sources. Our results provide evidence for a composite representation of space in SWM derived from both perception and LTM, albeit with a loss in spatial precision of locations retrieved from LTM. More generally, the data support the concept of a spatial image in working memory and extend its potential sources to representations retrieved from LTM.

show abstract

Haptic experiences influence visually acquired memories: Reference frames during multimodal spatial learning

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Evaluating the Memorability of Physical Visualizations

Evaluating the Memorability of Physical Visualizations

The protagonist's first perspective influences the encoding of spatial information in narratives

Combining Locations from Working Memory and Long-Term Memory into a Common Spatial Image

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About