Don't miss your train! Just follow the computer screen animation: Comprehension processes of animated public information graphics

Computer graphic animated information displays have the potential to communicate public information in situations where normal announcement types are ineffective. This study used eye tracking techniques to analyze comprehension mechanism of event-related information on railway traffic disruptions presented via different graphic formats presented on computer screen. 86 participants were asked to understand series of traffic disruption messages delivered via four purely visual formats: Static simultaneous, Static sequential, Animated simultaneous and Animated sequential. Across these four conditions, and contrary to the most common materials used in the studies on animation comprehension, the sequentiality and the animated properties of the entities of the presentation were not confounded. Results revealed the Animated sequential displays were the most effective presentation type. Eye tracking data showed why an animation facilitates comprehension of public information graphics: it enhances processing strategies which provide the best condition for segmenting and composing the causal chain of the events provided in the message.

[1]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  The effect of animation on comprehension and interest , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[2]  J. Mandler.  Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory , 1984 .

[3]  Bonnie B. Armbruster.  Schema Theory and the Design of Content-Area Textbooks , 1986 .

[4]  Jean-Michel Boucheix,et al.  Comprehension of animated public information graphics , 2010 .

[5]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[6]  Mark C. Detweiler,et al.  Iconic Reference: Evolving Perspectives and an Organizing Framework , 1993, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[7]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[8]  F. Paas,et al.  Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? , 2010 .

[9]  Eric Jamet,et al.  Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[10]  T. Gog,et al.  In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli , 2010 .

[11]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning , 2010 .

[12]  Qing Zeng-Treitler,et al.  A taxonomy of representation strategies in iconic communication , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Fred Paas,et al.  Instructional efficiency of animation: effects of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static key frames , 2007 .

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

[15]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics , 2010 .

[16]  Jean-Michel Boucheix,et al.  Dynamic Diagrams: A Composition Alternative , 2012, Diagrams.

[17]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  An Eye Tracking Comparison of External Pointing Cues and Internal Continuous Cues in Learning with Complex Animations , 2010 .

[18]  Richard K. Lowe.  Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning , 1999 .

[19]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Effects of animation's speed of presentation on perceptual processing and learning , 2010 .

[20]  F. Paas,et al.  Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective , 2007 .

[21]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  The mind's eye : cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research , 2003 .

[22]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning , 2007 .

[23]  Björn B. de Koning,et al.  Facilitating Understanding of Movements in Dynamic Visualizations: an Embodied Perspective , 2011 .

[24]  Mireille Betrancourt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[25]  Harm J. G. Zwaga,et al.  Visual Information For Everyday Use : Design And Research Perspectives , 1999 .

[26]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[28]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: Effects of presentation format and realism , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? , 2011 .

[30]  Peter Gerjets,et al.  How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns , 2012 .

[31]  Martin B. Curry,et al.  Icon Identification in Context: The Changing Role of Icon Characteristics With User Experience , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Rolf Plötzner,et al.  A systematic characterisation of expository animations , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[33]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Icons at the Interface: Their Usefulness , 1989, Interact. Comput..

[34]  M. Hegarty.  Dynamic visualizations and learning: getting to the difficult questions , 2004 .

[35]  Jean-Michel Boucheix,et al.  Cueing animations: Dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension , 2013 .

[36]  Olivier Bodenreider,et al.  The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  C. Snider,et al.  The Eyes , 1877, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[38]  Béatrice S. Hasler,et al.  Learner Control, Cognitive Load and Instructional Animation , 2007 .

[39]  T. Gog,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of How Segmentation of Dynamic Visualizations Optimizes Students' Learning , 2010 .

[40]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Aligning Affordances of Graphics with Learning Task Requirements , 2011 .

[41]  Sandra Berney,et al.  When and why does animation enhance learning ? A review , 2012 .

[42]  F. Paas,et al.  How to Optimize Learning From Animated Models: A Review of Guidelines Based on Cognitive Load , 2008 .

[43]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[44]  Terry C. Lansdown,et al.  The mind's eye: cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research , 2005 .

[45]  Jean-Michel Boucheix,et al.  Manipulatable Models for Investigating Processing of Dynamic Diagrams , 2010, Diagrams.

[46]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Learning with Animation: Research Implications for Design , 2007 .

[47]  Jean-Michel Boucheix,et al.  Learning from Animated Diagrams: How Are Mental Models Built? , 2008, Diagrams.

[48]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[49]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The Effects of Signals on Learning from Text and Diagrams: How Looking at Diagrams Earlier and More Frequently Improves Understanding , 2010, Diagrams.

[50]  Laurent Saby,et al.  Quel format visuel adopter pour informer les sourds et malentendants dans les transports collectifs , 2013 .

[51]  Fred Paas,et al.  Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach , 2007 .

[52]  Emmanuel Schneider,et al.  Static and Animated Presentations in Learning Dynamic Mechanical Systems. , 2009 .