Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze switches and memory load

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 863-871

  Bauhoff, Vera ^a   Huff, Markus ^b   Schwan, Stephan ^a  

^a KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 84870331013     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.2887     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Aiken, S. A., & West, S. G (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
2. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135-146). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Canham, M., & Hegarty M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics, Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 155-166. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014.
4. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
5. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55-81. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2; DOI: 10.1016%2F0010-0285%2873%2990004-2.
6. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020.
7. Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddley, A. D., & Wilson, L. (1997). Visual pattern test. Bury St. Admunds: Thames Valley Test Company.
8. Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1126-1141. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1426.
9. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: Meta-analyses of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.
10. Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W. T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461-482. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.461.
11. Hardiess, G., Gillner, S., & Mallot, H. A. (2008). Head and eye movements and the role of memory limitations in a visual search paradigm. Journal of Vision, 8(1), 1-13. DOI: 10.1167/8.1.7.
12. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Hg.), Human mental workload. (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13. Hegarty, M., Canham, M., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 37-53. DOI: 10.1037/a0017683.
14. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215-1226. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1525.
15. Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2011). Integrating information from two pictorial animations: Complexity and cognitive prerequisites influence performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 878-886. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1762.
16. Huff, M., Bauhoff V., & Schwan, S. (2012). Effects of split attention revisited: A new display technology for troubleshooting tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1254-1261. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.008.
17. Inamdar, S., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Comparative search reveals the tradeoff between eye movements and working memory use in visual tasks. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 599-604.
18. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
20. Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements. Psychological Science, 12(1), 48-55. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00309.
21. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101-120. DOI: 10.1023/A:1013136727916; DOI: 10.1023%2FA%3A1013136727916.
22. Seufert, T., Schütze, M., & Brünken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 28-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.01.002.
23. Sweller, J., Ayres P., & Kalyuga S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
24. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022193728205; DOI: 10.1023%2FA%3A1022193728205.
25. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424-436. DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.80.4.424; DOI: 10.1037%2F%2F0022-0663.80.4.424.