The cognitive basis for the split-attention effect.

The split-attention effect entails that learning from spatially separated, but mutually referring information sources (e.g., text and picture), is less effective than learning from the equivalent spatially integrated sources. According to cognitive load theory, impaired learning is caused by the working memory load imposed by the need to distribute attention between the information sources and mentally integrate them. In this study, we directly tested whether the split-attention effect is caused by spatial separation per se. Spatial distance was varied in basic cognitive tasks involving pictures (Experiment 1) and text-picture combinations (Experiment 2; preregistered study), and in more ecologically valid learning materials (Experiment 3). Experiment 1 showed that having to integrate two pictorial stimuli at greater distances diminished performance on a secondary visual working memory task, but did not lead to slower integration. When participants had to integrate a picture and written text in Experiment 2, a greater distance led to slower integration of the stimuli, but not to diminished performance on the secondary task. Experiment 3 showed that presenting spatially separated (compared with integrated) textual and pictorial information yielded fewer integrative eye movements, but this was not further exacerbated when increasing spatial distance even further. This effect on learning processes did not lead to differences in learning outcomes between conditions. In conclusion, we provide evidence that larger distances between spatially separated information sources influence learning processes, but that spatial separation on its own is not likely to be the only, nor a sufficient, condition for impacting learning outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  F. Paas,et al.  Towards a Framework for Attention Cueing in Instructional Animations: Guidelines for Research and Design , 2009 .

[2]  K. Holmqvist,et al.  Reading Information Graphics: the Role of Spatial Contiguity and Dual Attentional Guidance , 2022 .

[3]  A. Baddeley The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  R. Mayer,et al.  A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text , 1995 .

[5]  Markus Huff,et al.  Distance Matters: Spatial Contiguity Effects as Trade‐Off between Gaze Switches and Memory Load , 2012 .

[6]  J. Sweller COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[7]  H. Pashler,et al.  Evidence for split attentional foci. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Hans Spada,et al.  The Active Integration of Information during Learning with Dynamic and Interactive Visualisations , 2004 .

[9]  P. Paubel,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Time Considerations: Using the Time-Based Resource Sharing Model , 2018 .

[10]  Jeffrey N Rouder,et al.  Bayesian Analysis of Factorial Designs , 2017, Psychological methods.

[11]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[12]  Anne Schüler Investigating gaze behavior during processing of inconsistent text-picture information: Evidence for text-picture integration , 2017 .

[13]  H. Barlow Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities , 1958, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  John Sweller,et al.  The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2021, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[15]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning , 2010 .

[16]  J. Hyönä,et al.  Utilization of Illustrations during Learning of Science Textbook Passages among Low- and High-Ability Children. , 1999, Contemporary educational psychology.

[17]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[18]  Хобби Карьера Образование Split Attention Effect , 2011 .

[19]  Cheryl I. Johnson,et al.  An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Effects of task experience and layout on learning from text and pictures with or without unnecessary picture descriptions , 2018, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[21]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  Time constraints and resource sharing in adults' working memory spans. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Rolf Ploetzner,et al.  What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity , 2010 .

[23]  W. Pouw,et al.  An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives , 2014 .

[24]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[25]  Fred G. W. C. Paas,et al.  The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures , 1992 .

[26]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[27]  K. Scheiter,et al.  Text–Picture Integration: How Delayed Testing Moderates Recognition of Pictorial Information in Multimedia Learning , 2015 .

[28]  J. Sweller Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[29]  Alan D. Baddeley,et al.  Visual patterns test: a test of short-term visual recall , 1997 .

[30]  D. Ballard,et al.  Memory Representations in Natural Tasks , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  Paul Ginns Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[32]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[33]  K. Scheiter,et al.  Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements , 2015 .

[34]  T. Gog The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[35]  Patrik Pluchino,et al.  Eye-movement modeling of integrative reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning , 2015 .

[36]  Björn B. de Koning,et al.  Attention Guidance Strategies for Supporting Learning from Dynamic Visualizations , 2017 .

[37]  J. D. Fletcher,et al.  The Multimedia Principle. , 2005 .

[38]  R. Wurtz Neuronal mechanisms of visual stability , 2008, Vision Research.

[39]  J. van der Steen,et al.  Copying Strategies for Patterns by Children and Adults , 2000, Perceptual and motor skills.

[40]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  The Time-Based Resource-Sharing Model of Working Memory , 2020, Working Memory.

[41]  Hanspeter A Mallot,et al.  Head and eye movements and the role of memory limitations in a visual search paradigm. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[42]  N. Cowan The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[43]  Logan Fiorella,et al.  Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity and Temporal Contiguity Principles. , 2014 .

[44]  L. Saunders TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK , 1999 .

[45]  Jennifer Grace Cromley,et al.  Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams , 2010 .

[46]  P. Chandler,et al.  THE SPLIT‐ATTENTION EFFECT AS A FACTOR IN THE DESIGN OF INSTRUCTION , 1992 .

[47]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[48]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[49]  F. Paas Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. , 1992 .

[50]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[51]  F. Paas,et al.  Instructional Efficiency: Revisiting the Original Construct in Educational Research , 2008 .

[52]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension , 2005 .

[53]  Kenneth Holmqvist,et al.  Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures , 2011 .

[54]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial , 2018, Journal of cognition.

[55]  Erol Özçelik,et al.  Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  Marc Pomplun,et al.  Comparative Search Reveals the Tradeoff between Eye Movements and Working Memory Use in Visual Tasks , 2003 .

[57]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[58]  Patrik Pluchino,et al.  Using eye-tracking technology as an indirect instruction tool to improve text and picture processing and learning , 2016, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[59]  Wai-Tat Fu,et al.  Soft constraints in interactive behavior: the case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[60]  Sebastiaan Mathôt,et al.  PyGaze: An open-source, cross-platform toolbox for minimal-effort programming of eyetracking experiments , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[61]  Eric Jamet,et al.  An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..