The Cognitive Basis for the Split-Attention Effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 148, Issue 11, 2019, Pages 2058-2075

  Pouw, Wim ^a,b   Rop, Gertjan ^a   de Koning, Bjorn ^a   Paas, Fred ^a,c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

cognitive load theory; cognitive psychology; educational psychology; split attention effect; working memory

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; EYE MOVEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SHORT TERM MEMORY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85064332439     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/xge0000578     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Arndt, J., Schüler, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Text-picture integration: How delayed testing moderates recognition of pictorial information in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 702–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3154
2. Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 834–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.26.2.834
3. Ayres, P., & Cierniak, G. (2012). Split-attention effect. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 3172–3175). New York, NY: Springer U. S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_19
4. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 206–226). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011
5. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
6. Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., & Pelz, J. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 66–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66
7. Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 83–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.83
8. Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2007). The time-based resource-sharing model of working memory. In N. Osaka, R. H. Logie, & M. D’Esposito (Eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of working memory (pp. 59–80). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570394.003.0004
9. Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze-switches and memory load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 863–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.2887
10. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006
11. Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
12. Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 174–206). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.010
13. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
14. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.
15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
17. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagram. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002
18. Dalmaijer, E. S., Mathôt, S., & Van der Stigchel, S. (2014). PyGaze: An open-source, cross-platform toolbox for minimal-effort programming of eyetracking experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 913–921. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0422-2
19. De Koning, B. B., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). Attention guidance strategies for supporting learning from dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualizations: Innovations in research and practice (pp. 255–278). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56204-9_11
20. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.
21. Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., & Wilson, J. T. L. (1997). Visual patterns test: A test of short-term visual recall. Suffolk, UK: Thames Valley Test Company.
22. Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
23. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
24. Gray, W. D., & Fu, W. T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28, 359–382.
25. Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987
26. 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), 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/8.1.7
27. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215–1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525
29. Inamdar, S., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Comparative search reveals the tradeoff between eye movements and working memory use in visual tasks. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 25).
30. Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.013
31. JASP Team. (2018). JASP. (Version 0.9) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/
32. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026923
34. Lagers-van Haselen, G. C., van der Steen, J., & Frens, M. A. (2000). Copying strategies for patterns by children and adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91, 603–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.603
35. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of text and picture integration during reading: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 172–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.01.004
36. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2016). Using eye-tracking technology as an indirect instruction tool to improve text and picture processing and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 1083–1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12271
37. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 279–315). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02300480
40. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
41. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Arib, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001
42. Ozcelik, E., Karakus, T., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 53, 445–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.002
43. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problemsolving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
44. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 27–425). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004
45. 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, 63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
46. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872089303500412
47. Pouw, W. T. J. L., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 51–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9255-5
48. Puma, S., Matton, N., Paubel, P. V., & Tricot, A. (2018). Cognitive load theory and time considerations: Using the time-based resource sharing model. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1199–1214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9438-6
49. Rop, G., Schüler, A., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Scheiter, K., & Van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of task experience and layout on learning from text and pictures with or without unnecessary picture descriptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34, 458–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12287
50. Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Verhagen, J., Swagman, A. R., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). Bayesian analysis of factorial designs. Psychological Methods, 22, 304–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000057
51. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002
52. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011
53. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 73–103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.006
54. Schüler, A. (2017). Investigating gaze behaviour during processing of inconsistent text-picture information: Evidence for text-picture integration. Learning and Instruction, 49, 218–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.001
55. Stoet, G. (2016). Wisconsin card sorting task (WCST). Retrieved from http://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/wcst.html
56. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
57. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
58. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
59. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problemsolving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424
60. Van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd rev. ed., pp. 263–278). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
61. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756248