Desney S. Tan
Darren Gergle
Peter Scupelli
Randy Pausch
Abstract
Large wall-sized displays are becoming prevalent. Although researchers have articulated qualitative benefits of group work on large displays, little work has been done to quantify the benefits for individual users. In this article we present four experiments comparing the performance of users working on a large projected wall display to that of users working on a standard desktop monitor. In these experiments, we held the visual angle constant by adjusting the viewing distance to each of the displays. Results from the first two experiments suggest that physically large displays, even when viewed at identical visual angles as smaller ones, help users perform better on mental rotation tasks. We show through the experiments how these results may be attributed, at least in part, to large displays immersing users within the problem space and biasing them into using more efficient cognitive strategies. In the latter two experiments, we extend these results, showing the presence of these effects with more complex tasks, such as 3D navigation and mental map formation and memory. Results further show that the effects of physical display size are independent of other factors that may induce immersion, such as interactivity and mental aids within the virtual environments. We conclude with a general discussion of the findings and possibilities for future work.
- Arthur, K. W. 2000. Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Google Scholar
- Baudisch, P., Good, N., Belloti, V., and Schraedley, P. 2002. Keeping things in context: A comparitive evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. In Proceedings of the CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 259--266. Google Scholar
- Booth, K., Fisher, B., Page, S., Ware, C., and Widen, S. 2000. Wayfinding in a virtual environment. Graphics Interface 2000.Google Scholar
- Brooks, F. P. 1999. What's real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19, 6, 16--27. Google Scholar
- Buxton, w. 2001. Less is more (More or less). In The Invisible Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology in Everyday Life. P. Denning, Ed. McGraw Hill: New York, NY, 145--179. Google Scholar
- Bystrom, K. E., Barfield, W., and Hendrix, C. 1999. A conceptual model of the sense of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 2, 241--244. Google Scholar
- Carpenter, M. and Proffitt, D. 2001. Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes. Memory & Cognition 29, 441--448.Google Scholar
- Chapanis, A. and Scarpa, L. C. 1967. Readability of dials at difference distances with constant viewing angle. Human Factors 9, 5, 419--426.Google Scholar
- Childs, I. 1988. HDTV-putting you in the picture. IEE Rev. 34, 7, 261--265.Google Scholar
- Chou, P., Gruteser, M., Lai, J., Levas, A., McFaddin, S., Pinhanez, C., Viveros, M., Wong, D., and Yoshihama, S. 2001. BlueSpace: Creating a personalized and context-aware workspace. IBM Tech. Rep. RC22281.Google Scholar
- Cutmore, T. R. H., Hine, T. J., Maberly, K. J., Langford, N. M., and Hawgood, G. 2000. Cognitive and gender factors influencing navigation in a virtual environment. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Studies 53, 223--249. Google Scholar
- Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., and Robertson, G. G. 2002. Women take a wider view. In Proceedings of the CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 195--202. Google Scholar
- Darken, R. and Sibert, J. 1996. Navigating in large virtual worlds. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interaction 8, 1, 49--72. Google Scholar
- Dudfield, H. J., Macklin, C., Fearnley, R., Simpson, A., and Hall, P. 2001. Big is better? Human factors issues of large screen displays with military command teams. In Proceedings of People in Control 2001, 304--309.Google Scholar
- Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H., and Dermen, D. 1976. Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. In Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Elrod, S., Bwee, R., Gold, R., Goldberg, D., Halasz, F., Janssen, W., Lee, D., McCau K., Pedersen, E., Pier, K., Tang, J., and Welch, B. 1992. Liveboard: A large interactive display supporting group meetings, presentations and remote collaboration. In Proceedings of the CHI 1992 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 599--607. Google Scholar
- Epic Games. Unreal Tournament. http://www.unrealtournament.comGoogle Scholar
- Flach, J. 1990. Control with an eye for perception: Precursors to an active psychophysics. Ecol. Psych. 2, 83--111.Google Scholar
- Guilford, J. P. 1972. Thurstone's primary mental abilities and structure-of-intellect abilities. Psyc. Bull. 77, 2, 129--143.Google Scholar
- Guilford, J. P. and Zimmerman, W. S. 1948. The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. J. Appl. Psych. 32, 24--34.Google Scholar
- Guimbretière, F. 2002. Fluid interaction for high resolution wall-size displays. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
- Infield, S. E. 1991. An investigation into the relationship between navigation skill and spatial abilities. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(5-B), 2800.Google Scholar
- Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. 1997. Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the CHI 1997 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 234--241. Google Scholar
- Lin, J. J., Duh, H. B. L., Parker, D. E., Abi-Rached, H., and Furness, T. A. 2002. Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Conference 2002, 164--171. Google Scholar
- Lohman, D. 1979. Spatial ability: A review and reanalysis of the correlational literature. Tech. Rep., N.8. Stanford University, Aptitude Research Project, School of Education.Google Scholar
- Patrick, E., Cosgrove, D., Slavkovic, A., Rode, J. A., Vewatti, T., and Chiselko, G. 2000. Using a large projection screen as an alternative to head-mounted displays for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 478--485. Google Scholar
- Philbeck, J. W., Klatzky, R. L., Behrmann, M., Loomis, J. M., and Goodridge, J. 2001. Active control of locomotion facilitates nonvisual navigation. J. Exper. Psych. Human Perception and Performance 27, 141--153.Google Scholar
- Prothero, J. D. and Hoffman, H. D. 1995. Widening the field of view increases the sense of presence within immersive virtual environments. Human Interface Technology Laboratory Tech. Rep., University of Washington, Seattle, WA, R-95-4.Google Scholar
- Raskar, R., Wetch, G., Cutts, M., Lake, A., Stesin, L., and Fuchs, H. 1998. The office of the future: A unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 1998 International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 179--188. Google Scholar
- Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E. Y., and Tatar, D. 1999. The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psych. 1, 1, 49--67.Google Scholar
- Ruddle, R., Payne, S., and Jones, D. 1999. The effects of maps on navigation and search strategies in very-large-scale virtual environments. J. Exper. Psych. Applied, 5, 54--75.Google Scholar
- Shepard, R. N. and Metzler, J. 1971. Mental rotations of three-dimensional objects. Science 171, 3972, 701--703.Google Scholar
- Slater, M. and Usoh, M. 1993. Presence in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference---Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 90--96.Google Scholar
- Streitz, N. A., GeiBler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischi, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., and Steinmetz, R. 1999. i-LAND: An interactive landscape for creativity and innovation. In Proceedings of the CHI 1999 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 120--127. Google Scholar
- Suzuki, K. and Nakata, Y. 1988. Does the size of figures affect the rate of mental rotation? Perception & Psychophysics 44, 1, 76--80.Google Scholar
- Swaminathan, N. and Sato, S. 1997. Interaction design for large displays. Interactions 4, 1, 15--24. Google Scholar
- Tan, D. S. 2005. Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Dislpays (Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International 65, 9, 4681. Google Scholar
- Tan, D. S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., and Pausch, R. 2003. With similar visual angles, larger displays improve performance on spatial tasks. In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 217--224. Google Scholar
- Tan, D. S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., and Pausch, R. 2004. Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks. In Proceedings of the CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 439--446. Google Scholar
- Tan, D. S., Stefanucci, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., and Pausch, R. 2001. The Infocockpit: Providing location and place to aid human memory. Workshop on Perceptive User Interfaces 2001. Google Scholar
- Tani, M., Masato, H., Kimiya, Y., Koichiro, T., and Futakawa, M. 1994. Courtyard: Integrating shared overview on a large screen and per-user detail on individual screens. In Proceedings of the CHI 1994 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 44--50. Google Scholar
- Thorndyke, P. and Hayes-Roth, B. 1982. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cog. Psych. 14, 560--589.Google Scholar
- Thurstone, L. L. and Thurstone, T. G. 1941. Factorial studies of intelligence. Psychometric Monograph, 2.Google Scholar
- Tlauka, M. 2002. Switching imagined viewpoints: The effects of viewing angle and layout size. Brit. J. Psych. 93, 193--201.Google Scholar
- Waller, D., Hunt, E., and Knapp, D. 1998. The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 2, 129--143. Google Scholar
- Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 2000. Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. J. Exper. Psych. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1, 151--168.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks
Recommendations
With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance
CHI '03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsLarge wall-sized displays are becoming prevalent. Although researchers have articulated qualitative benefits of group work on large displays, little work has been done to quantify the benefits for individual users. We ran two studies comparing the ...
Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks
CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsPrevious results have shown that users perform better on spatial orientation tasks involving static 2D scenes when working on physically large displays as compared to small ones. This was found to be true even when the displays presented the same images ...
Can users read text on large displays?: Effects of Physical Display Size on Users' Reading Comprehension of Text
CHItaly '15: Proceedings of the 11th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI ChapterLarge displays are becoming prevalent, but little research has been conducted to quantify their effect on an individual user. We present an experiment in which users' reading comprehension of text displayed on physically large and small displays are ...
Reviews
Egon L. van den Broek
With the rise of large screens, projectors, and virtual reality environments, the interest in the effects of using large displays has increased. Tan, Gergle, Scupelli, and Pausch present four experiments that examine the effects of large displays on users. The distinction between the exocentric and egocentric strategies of users in their engagement with the environment on the display is noted. However, the results of the first experiment lack explanatory power. For the first two experiments, a broad range of tests is used to determine user preferences, including the Guilford-Zimmerman test, the card and cube test of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests [1], and the Shepard-Metzler test [2]. In the third experiment, a significant effect for display size is found: users moved shorter distances to find the targets. The fourth experiment, in a more ecologically valid (gaming) environment, confirmed the results of the third experiment. Moreover, an interaction effect (display size * difficulty of task) was found. Hence, the more complex a task becomes, the more helpful a large display becomes. The authors confirm previous research by stating that large displays improve spatial tasks. However, their goal of unraveling some of the underlying cognitive aspects of users is not satisfied. This is probably due to the interference of a range of uncontrolled factors, as well as the continuous interaction of a range of cognitive processes. Therefore, in parallel to applied research, fundamental research on human cognition is still very important for better understanding user behavior.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments