1. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 1 The impact of interactive exploration on the recognition of objects Frank Meijer a, Egon L. van den Broek b and Theo Schouten c 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 7 Set-up Two std. computers –Study phase –Test phase Subjects switched between them –After each phase Interaction through std. mouse and keyboard

8. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 8 Objects Based on Biederman “geons“ (3 or 5)

9. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 9 Study Phase Explore objects in different conditions Active, passive (rotate x,y,z), control (math task) vs. 

10. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 10 Are these objects the same? –Response: yes/no Mental rotations task Test Phase

11. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 11 Object complexity Simple objects more accurate (p <.001) Active/Passive vs Control (p <.001) Active vs Passive ns. Simple objects faster (4 vs 6 s) Speed independent exploration

12. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 12 Visual Spatial Abilities Interaction VSA group & Expl. Cond. p =.047 Low VSA group –Active vs Passive p =.018 Other groups ns.

13. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 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. 28/06/2015 Electronic Imaging Conference - San Jose 14 The End Questions?