| Title |
Design of embodied interfaces for engaging spatial cognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41235-016-0032-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul G. Clifton, Jack Shen-Kuen Chang, Georgina Yeboah, Alison Doucette, Sanjay Chandrasekharan, Michael Nitsche, Timothy Welsh, Ali Mazalek |
| Abstract |
Aspects of spatial cognition, specifically spatial skills, are strongly correlated with interest and success in STEM courses and STEM-related professions. Because growth in STEM-related industries is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, it is important to develop evidence-based and theoretically grounded methods and interventions that can help train relevant spatial skills. In this article, we discuss research showing that aspects of spatial cognition are embodied and how these findings and theoretical developments can be used to influence the design of tangible and embodied interfaces (TEIs). TEIs seek to bring interaction with digital content off the screen and into the physical environment. By incorporating physical movement and tangible feedback in digital systems, TEIs can leverage the relationship between the body and spatial cognition to engage, support, or improve spatial skills. We use this knowledge to define a design space for TEIs that engage spatial cognition and illustrate how TEIs that are designed and evaluated from a spatial cognition perspective can expand the design space in ways that contribute to the fields of cognitive science and human computer interaction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 14 | 17% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 10% |
| Design | 5 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 20% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,545,740
of 24,637,659 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#263
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,895
of 429,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,637,659 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,586 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.