The impact of interactive exploration on the recognition of objects

1
The impact of interactive exploration on the
recognition of objects

• Frank Meijera, Egon L. van den Broekb and Theo
  Schoutenc

a Dept. of Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics,
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of
Twente, The Netherlands b Centre for Telematics
and Information Technology (CTIT), University of
Twente, The Netherlands c Institute for
Information Science (ICIS), Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2
Research topics

• use of interactive (virtual) environment in
  product development
• tool for design and communication
• stakeholders, e.g. engineer, end-user
• interaction in IE
• What is the added value for product design?
• Does it help users to increase their
  understanding of design situations?

3
Object Recognition and Interactivity

• Biederman (1987)
• Humans recognize objects by their components
  (geons)
• Visibility of the geons determine speed of object
  recognition
• Wohlschläger Wohlschläger (1998)
• Cognitive processes involved with mental and
  manual object rotations are interrelated
• James, Humphrey, Goodale (2001)
• Active exploration of objects benefits
  performance on a subsequent recognition task
• Interactivity facilitates object recognition

4
Visual Spatial Abilities (VSA)

• Users differ in VSA
• Mental Rotation Test (VandenBerg Kuse ,1978)

• Two objects are the same as the object on the
  left.
• Division into three groups (low, medium, high)

5
Questions

• Does interactive exploration facilitate the
  recognition of objects?
• Do the effects of interactive exploration differ
  for humans with different VSA?
• Do subjects respond faster and more accurate on
  simple objects than on difficult objects?

6
Experiment Overview

• VSA test
• Study phase, 3 study conditions
• Active (interactive), passive, control
• Test phase mental rotations test
• 3 and 5 geon objects, 24 each
• 36 subjects (students)

7
Set-up

• Two std. computers
• Study phase
• Test phase
• Subjects switched between them
• After each phase
• Interaction through std. mouse and keyboard

8
Objects

• Based on Biederman geons (3 or 5)

9
Study Phase

• Explore objects in different conditions
• Active, passive (rotate x,y,z), control (math
  task)

10
Test Phase

• Are these objects the same?
• Response yes/no
• Mental rotations task

11
Object complexity

• Simple objects more accurate (p lt .001)
• Active/Passive vs Control (p lt .001)
• Active vs Passive ns.
• Simple objects faster (4 vs 6 s)
• Speed independent exploration

12
Visual Spatial Abilities

• Interaction VSA group Expl. Cond. p .047
• Low VSA group
• Active vs Passive p .018
• Other groups ns.

13
Conclusions

• Low VSA group benefits from active exploration,
  whereas high VSA does not
• High VSA are better than low VSA
• Non-trained users need a more sophisticated
  system to understand the product

14
The End

• Questions?