Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the roles of 3D representations in audio and audio-visual collaborations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of performance and communication within audio-visual (shared representations) and audio-only conditions. Two three-dimensional (3D) representations were presented in each communication condition. The goal of the study was to examine both explicit and implicit references made during verbal interactions, and to gather subjective usability evaluations of each representation. Sixty dyads performed a series of problem solving tasks in three experimental conditions: mixed, 3D cylinder and 3D helix representations. Assessment measures included overall performance time and accuracy, and user attitudes pertaining to the usability of the displays. Although no differences in task performance were observed, qualitative measures revealed differences between representation and communication groups. User preferences for 3D cylinder and 3D helix representations were observed, with disparate strategies being adopted between groups. In general, the analyses indicated that the presence of shared visual information enhances collaborative problem solving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ainsworth SE, Peevers GJ (2003) The interaction between informational and computational properties on problem-solving and learning. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, Massachusetts, July/August 2003

  2. Chapanis A (1975). Interactive human communication. Sci Am 232:3–42

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chou C, Tsai C-C, Tsai H-F (2001) Developing a networked VRML learning system for health science education in Taiwan. Int J Educ Dev 21:293–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Doherty-Sneddon G, O’Malley C, Garrod S, Anderson A, Langton S, Bruce V (1997) Face-to-face and video-mediated communication: A comparison of dialogue structure and task performance. J Exp Psychol Appl 3(2):105–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hicks M, O’Malley C, Nichols S, Anderson B (2003) Comparison of 2D and 3D representations for visualising telecommunications usage. Behav Inform Technol 22(3):185–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge

  7. Kotovsky K, Simon HA (1990) What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space difficulty. Cognitive Psychol 22:143–183

    Google Scholar 

  8. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Sci 11:65–99

    Google Scholar 

  9. Meister D (1986) Human factors testing and evaluation. Elsevier, New York

  10. Monk A, McCarthy J, Watts L, Daly-Jones O (1997) Measures of process. In: MacLeod M, Murray D (eds) Evaluation for CSCW. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1–7

  11. Neale H, Nichols S (2001) Theme-based content analysis: a flexible method for virtual environment evaluation. Int J Hum Comput St 55:167–189

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Ochsman RB, Chapanis A (1974) The effects of 10 communication modes on the behaviour of teams during co-operative problem-solving. Int J Man Mach Stud 6:579–619

    Google Scholar 

  13. Okada T, Simon HA (1997) Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Sci 21(2):109–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Perkins DN (1993) Person-plus: A distributed view of think and learning. In: Salomon G (ed) Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , pp 88–111

  15. Salomon G (1993) No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In: Salomon G (ed) Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 111–138

  16. Zhang J (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Sci 21(2):179–217

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang J (1998) A distributed representation approach to group problem solving. J Am Soc Inform Sci 49(9):801–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a research studentship funded by University of Nottingham and BT.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Martin Hicks

    Present address: pp 1 Ross Building, Adastral Park, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP5 3RE, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Mechanical, Materials, Manufacturing Engineering & Management and School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Martin Hicks, Sarah Nichols & Claire O’Malley

  2. Chimera, Institute for Socio-Technical Innovation and Research, University of Essex, UK

    Martin Hicks

Authors
  1. Martin Hicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Nichols
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claire O’Malley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Hicks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hicks, M., Nichols, S. & O’Malley, C. Comparing the roles of 3D representations in audio and audio-visual collaborations. Virtual Reality 7, 148–163 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0126-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0126-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation