学习引导注意力:程序性任务训练计划的后果

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
{"title":"学习引导注意力:程序性任务训练计划的后果","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Procedural training programs such as augmented and virtual reality programs often present cues that direct trainees' attention to particular locations and/or items to facilitate learning. However, the impact of different types of cues on trainees' learning is poorly understood. For example, cues that indicate the location of to-be-pressed buttons might cause a trainee to focus on button locations rather than their icons. If the trainee later needs to use a differently-arranged interface, they may be unable to complete the tasks and may need retraining. The current study trained people with either location cues or icon cues and then had them perform the same tasks with a rearranged layout. The results indicate that what a trainee learns is impacted by the type of cue and the type of icons in the interface. When the interface contained icons that represented their function, participants trained with location cues had poorer accuracy and reported experiencing higher difficulty using the interface than participants trained with icon cues, suggesting that icon cues may lead to greater learning than location cues. Both groups, though, maintained similar accuracy when the interface rearranged, indicating they both learned button icons. When the interface contained abstract icons, participants trained with icon cues were able to maintain higher accuracy with the rearranged interface compared to participants trained with location cues suggesting they had greater knowledge of button icons. This finding indicates designers of procedural training programs should consider how cue type could impact a trainee's learning, particularly with abstract icons.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7141,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychologica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Learning to direct attention: Consequences for procedural task training programs\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104502\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Procedural training programs such as augmented and virtual reality programs often present cues that direct trainees' attention to particular locations and/or items to facilitate learning. However, the impact of different types of cues on trainees' learning is poorly understood. For example, cues that indicate the location of to-be-pressed buttons might cause a trainee to focus on button locations rather than their icons. If the trainee later needs to use a differently-arranged interface, they may be unable to complete the tasks and may need retraining. The current study trained people with either location cues or icon cues and then had them perform the same tasks with a rearranged layout. The results indicate that what a trainee learns is impacted by the type of cue and the type of icons in the interface. When the interface contained icons that represented their function, participants trained with location cues had poorer accuracy and reported experiencing higher difficulty using the interface than participants trained with icon cues, suggesting that icon cues may lead to greater learning than location cues. Both groups, though, maintained similar accuracy when the interface rearranged, indicating they both learned button icons. When the interface contained abstract icons, participants trained with icon cues were able to maintain higher accuracy with the rearranged interface compared to participants trained with location cues suggesting they had greater knowledge of button icons. This finding indicates designers of procedural training programs should consider how cue type could impact a trainee's learning, particularly with abstract icons.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Psychologica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Psychologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691824003809\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691824003809","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

程序性培训项目(如增强现实和虚拟现实项目)通常会提供提示,引导受训者注意特定位置和/或项目,以促进学习。然而,人们对不同类型的提示对学员学习的影响知之甚少。例如,指示待按按钮位置的提示可能会使受训者将注意力集中在按钮位置上,而不是按钮图标上。如果受训者以后需要使用不同排列的界面,他们可能无法完成任务,需要重新接受培训。目前的研究通过位置提示或图标提示对受训者进行了培训,然后让他们在重新布局的界面上完成同样的任务。结果表明,受训者所学到的东西会受到界面中提示类型和图标类型的影响。当界面中包含代表其功能的图标时,接受过位置线索训练的受训者比接受过图标线索训练的受训者的准确率更低,而且在使用界面时遇到的困难也更大,这表明图标线索可能比位置线索更能促进学习。不过,当界面重新排列时,两组参与者都保持了相似的准确率,这表明他们都学会了按钮图标。当界面包含抽象图标时,接受过图标线索训练的参与者与接受过位置线索训练的参与者相比,能够在重新排列的界面上保持更高的准确率,这表明他们对按钮图标有更多的了解。这一发现表明,程序培训项目的设计者应该考虑提示类型会如何影响受训者的学习,尤其是抽象图标的学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Learning to direct attention: Consequences for procedural task training programs
Procedural training programs such as augmented and virtual reality programs often present cues that direct trainees' attention to particular locations and/or items to facilitate learning. However, the impact of different types of cues on trainees' learning is poorly understood. For example, cues that indicate the location of to-be-pressed buttons might cause a trainee to focus on button locations rather than their icons. If the trainee later needs to use a differently-arranged interface, they may be unable to complete the tasks and may need retraining. The current study trained people with either location cues or icon cues and then had them perform the same tasks with a rearranged layout. The results indicate that what a trainee learns is impacted by the type of cue and the type of icons in the interface. When the interface contained icons that represented their function, participants trained with location cues had poorer accuracy and reported experiencing higher difficulty using the interface than participants trained with icon cues, suggesting that icon cues may lead to greater learning than location cues. Both groups, though, maintained similar accuracy when the interface rearranged, indicating they both learned button icons. When the interface contained abstract icons, participants trained with icon cues were able to maintain higher accuracy with the rearranged interface compared to participants trained with location cues suggesting they had greater knowledge of button icons. This finding indicates designers of procedural training programs should consider how cue type could impact a trainee's learning, particularly with abstract icons.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Psychologica
Acta Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
274
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychologica publishes original articles and extended reviews on selected books in any area of experimental psychology. The focus of the Journal is on empirical studies and evaluative review articles that increase the theoretical understanding of human capabilities.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信