Learning with erroneous visualizations modulates retention depending on perceptual richness and test type

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Theresa Dechamps, Alexander Skulmowski
{"title":"Learning with erroneous visualizations modulates retention depending on perceptual richness and test type","authors":"Theresa Dechamps,&nbsp;Alexander Skulmowski","doi":"10.1016/j.tine.2025.100256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Learners are increasingly subjected to inaccurate visualizations generated using artificial intelligence. Coincidentally, some learning strategies purposely let learners engage with erroneous content. Instructional visualizations can be created in varying levels of perceptual richness (or realism). We conducted the present experiment to assess whether testing using erroneous examples can be a viable strategy for learning tasks depending on their perceptual richness.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The two factors of testing (with an error-spotting task vs. without) and realism (schematic vs. realistic) were assessed using two retention tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Testing with erroneous examples was detrimental when combined with schematic visualizations, but helpful when applied to realistic imagery in one of the tests.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Studying with erroneous examples appears to require a certain level of realism to be an effective method. Exposing learners to inaccurate visualizations such as those generated by artificial intelligence tools may not be problematic as long as this fact is disclosed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46228,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","volume":"40 ","pages":"Article 100256"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Neuroscience and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949325000109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Learners are increasingly subjected to inaccurate visualizations generated using artificial intelligence. Coincidentally, some learning strategies purposely let learners engage with erroneous content. Instructional visualizations can be created in varying levels of perceptual richness (or realism). We conducted the present experiment to assess whether testing using erroneous examples can be a viable strategy for learning tasks depending on their perceptual richness.

Methods

The two factors of testing (with an error-spotting task vs. without) and realism (schematic vs. realistic) were assessed using two retention tests.

Results

Testing with erroneous examples was detrimental when combined with schematic visualizations, but helpful when applied to realistic imagery in one of the tests.

Conclusion

Studying with erroneous examples appears to require a certain level of realism to be an effective method. Exposing learners to inaccurate visualizations such as those generated by artificial intelligence tools may not be problematic as long as this fact is disclosed.
错误的视觉化学习根据感知丰富性和测试类型调节记忆
学习者越来越多地受到使用人工智能生成的不准确可视化的影响。巧合的是,一些学习策略故意让学习者接触错误的内容。教学可视化可以在不同程度的感知丰富性(或现实主义)中创建。我们进行了本实验,以评估使用错误示例的测试是否可以作为学习任务的可行策略,这取决于它们的感知丰富性。方法采用两种记忆保留测试,评估测试(有错误发现任务与没有错误发现任务)和现实主义(图式与现实)两个因素。结果错误示例的测试在与图解可视化相结合时是有害的,但在其中一个测试中应用于真实图像时是有益的。结论用错误例题进行研究需要一定的现实主义意识,这是一种有效的方法。让学习者接触人工智能工具生成的不准确的可视化可能没有问题,只要这一事实被披露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
22
审稿时长
65 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信