真实的细节影响学习者独立的注意力分散效应。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Processing Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1007/s10339-022-01123-z
Alexander Skulmowski
{"title":"真实的细节影响学习者独立的注意力分散效应。","authors":"Alexander Skulmowski","doi":"10.1007/s10339-022-01123-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Realistic visualizations are considered to introduce the risk of distracting learners from relevant information. In two experiments, the interplay between realism and a known form of distraction, the split-attention effect, were investigated. This effect describes that spatially separating relevant information can have a substantial negative effect on learning. The experiments were conducted using short anatomy learning tasks to test whether a combination of realism and split attention would lead to the worst retention performance or, alternatively, whether realism can counteract the negative effects of split attention. The first experiment (n = 125) revealed that realism attenuated the cognitive load induced by split attention, suggesting a compensatory effect of realism (i.e., realism may have helped learners to deal with the detrimental influence of split attention). However, retention performance was not impacted in a similar way, indicating that this compensatory effect on subjective cognitive load may actually be the result of learners' illusion that realistic details are helpful. Split attention significantly reduced retention performance. Experiment 2 (n = 152) resulted in negative effects of realism and split attention on retention. In sum, the experiments suggest that realistic details can affect learners independently of other visual design factors as exemplified by the split-attention effect. Thus, the assumption that realism is likely to distract learners is rendered implausible by the experiments, as the distraction of split attention should have amplified any distractive potential of realistic details. However, the results also suggest that the effects of realism on learning are still somewhat unpredictable.</p>","PeriodicalId":47638,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Processing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10110660/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Realistic details impact learners independently of split-attention effects.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Skulmowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10339-022-01123-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Realistic visualizations are considered to introduce the risk of distracting learners from relevant information. In two experiments, the interplay between realism and a known form of distraction, the split-attention effect, were investigated. This effect describes that spatially separating relevant information can have a substantial negative effect on learning. The experiments were conducted using short anatomy learning tasks to test whether a combination of realism and split attention would lead to the worst retention performance or, alternatively, whether realism can counteract the negative effects of split attention. The first experiment (n = 125) revealed that realism attenuated the cognitive load induced by split attention, suggesting a compensatory effect of realism (i.e., realism may have helped learners to deal with the detrimental influence of split attention). However, retention performance was not impacted in a similar way, indicating that this compensatory effect on subjective cognitive load may actually be the result of learners' illusion that realistic details are helpful. Split attention significantly reduced retention performance. Experiment 2 (n = 152) resulted in negative effects of realism and split attention on retention. In sum, the experiments suggest that realistic details can affect learners independently of other visual design factors as exemplified by the split-attention effect. Thus, the assumption that realism is likely to distract learners is rendered implausible by the experiments, as the distraction of split attention should have amplified any distractive potential of realistic details. However, the results also suggest that the effects of realism on learning are still somewhat unpredictable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Processing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10110660/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Processing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01123-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Processing","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01123-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

现实的可视化被认为会引入分散学习者对相关信息的风险。在两个实验中,研究人员调查了现实主义和一种已知的分心形式——注意力分散效应之间的相互作用。这一效应描述了空间分离相关信息会对学习产生实质性的负面影响。实验采用简短的解剖学习任务来测试真实感和分散注意力的结合是否会导致最差的记忆表现,或者,是否真实感可以抵消分散注意力的负面影响。第一个实验(n = 125)显示,现实主义减轻了注意力分裂引起的认知负荷,表明现实主义具有补偿作用(即现实主义可能帮助学习者应对注意力分裂的有害影响)。然而,记忆表现并没有受到类似的影响,这表明这种对主观认知负荷的补偿效应实际上可能是学习者错觉的结果,即现实的细节是有帮助的。分散注意力会显著降低留存率。实验2 (n = 152)发现现实性和分裂注意对记忆保留有负向影响。综上所述,实验表明逼真的细节可以独立于其他视觉设计因素影响学习者,例如注意力分散效应。因此,现实主义可能分散学习者注意力的假设被实验证明是不可信的,因为分散注意力应该放大现实细节的任何分散注意力的潜力。然而,研究结果也表明,现实主义对学习的影响仍然有些不可预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Realistic details impact learners independently of split-attention effects.

Realistic visualizations are considered to introduce the risk of distracting learners from relevant information. In two experiments, the interplay between realism and a known form of distraction, the split-attention effect, were investigated. This effect describes that spatially separating relevant information can have a substantial negative effect on learning. The experiments were conducted using short anatomy learning tasks to test whether a combination of realism and split attention would lead to the worst retention performance or, alternatively, whether realism can counteract the negative effects of split attention. The first experiment (n = 125) revealed that realism attenuated the cognitive load induced by split attention, suggesting a compensatory effect of realism (i.e., realism may have helped learners to deal with the detrimental influence of split attention). However, retention performance was not impacted in a similar way, indicating that this compensatory effect on subjective cognitive load may actually be the result of learners' illusion that realistic details are helpful. Split attention significantly reduced retention performance. Experiment 2 (n = 152) resulted in negative effects of realism and split attention on retention. In sum, the experiments suggest that realistic details can affect learners independently of other visual design factors as exemplified by the split-attention effect. Thus, the assumption that realism is likely to distract learners is rendered implausible by the experiments, as the distraction of split attention should have amplified any distractive potential of realistic details. However, the results also suggest that the effects of realism on learning are still somewhat unpredictable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Processing
Cognitive Processing PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes innovative contributions in the multidisciplinary field of cognitive science.  Its main purpose is to stimulate research and scientific interaction through communication between specialists in different fields on topics of common interest and to promote an interdisciplinary understanding of the diverse topics in contemporary cognitive science. Cognitive Processing is articulated in the following sections:Cognitive DevelopmentCognitive Models of Risk and Decision MakingCognitive NeuroscienceCognitive PsychologyComputational Cognitive SciencesPhilosophy of MindNeuroimaging and Electrophysiological MethodsPsycholinguistics and Computational linguisticsQuantitative Psychology and Formal Theories in Cognitive ScienceSocial Cognition and Cognitive Science of Culture
期刊最新文献
Autistic and non-autistic adults use discourse context to determine a speaker's intention to request. Testing the dual-memory framework: individual differences in the magnitude of the retrieval practice effect and fluid intelligence The effect of cognitive intervention program on intelligence scores in preschool Choosing between bad and worse: investigating choice in moral dilemmas through the lens of control. The impact of cognitive flexibility on prospective EFL teachers' critical thinking disposition: the mediating role of self-efficacy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1