No abstract

No abstract

Prior research suggests that "closer" interface styles, such as touch and tangible, would yield poorer performance on problem solving tasks as a result of their more natural interaction style. However, virtually no empirical investigations have been conducted to test this assumption. In this paper we describe an empirical study, comparing three interfaces, varying in closeness (mouse, touchscreen, and tangible) on a novel abstract problem solving task. We found that the tangible interface was significantly slower than both the mouse and touch interfaces. However, the touch and tangible interfaces were significantly more efficient than the mouse interface in problem solving across a number of measures. Overall, we found that the touch interface condition offered the best combination of speed and efficiency; in general, the closer interfaces offer significant benefit over the traditional mouse interface on abstract problem solving.

No abstract

Abstract.Prior studies have shown benefits of interactions on mobile devices. Device mobility itself changes the nature of the user experience; interactions on mobile devices may present better support for cognition. To better understand cognitive demands related to mobility, the current study investigated presentations on a mobile device for a three-dimensional construction task. The task imposed considerable cognitive load, particularly in demands for mental rotation; individual differences in spatial ability are known to interact with these demands. This study specifically investigated mobile device orientations and participants' spatial ability. Subjects with low spatial ability were able to complete the task more effectively when shown the presentation in a favorable orientation. Individuals who saw the presentation in an unfavorable orientation and those of low spatial ability, were differentially disadvantaged. We conclude that mobility can reduce cognitive load by limiting demands for spatial processing relating to reorientation.