Download - Stereoscopy in Static Scientific Imagery in an Informal Education Setting: Does It Matter?
Stereoscopy in Static Scientific Imagery in an Informal EducationSetting: Does It Matter?
C. Aaron Price • H.-S. Lee • K. Malatesta
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Stereoscopic technology (3D) is rapidly
becoming ubiquitous across research, entertainment and
informal educational settings. Children of today may grow
up never knowing a time when movies, television and
video games were not available stereoscopically. Despite
this rapid expansion, the field’s understanding of the
impact of stereoscopic visualizations on learning is rather
limited. Much of the excitement of stereoscopic technology
could be due to a novelty effect, which will wear off over
time. This study controlled for the novelty factor using a
variety of techniques. On the floor of an urban science
center, 261 children were shown 12 photographs and
visualizations of highly spatial scientific objects and
scenes. The images were randomly shown in either tradi-
tional (2D) format or in stereoscopic format. The children
were asked two questions of each image—one about a
spatial property of the image and one about a real-world
application of that property. At the end of the test, the child
was asked to draw from memory the last image they saw.
Results showed no overall significant difference in
response to the questions associated with 2D or 3D images.
However, children who saw the final slide only in 3D drew
more complex representations of the slide than those who
did not. Results are discussed through the lenses of cog-
nitive load theory and the effect of novelty on engagement.
Keywords Stereoscopy � 3D � Informal learning � Spatial
cognition � Visualizations � Science education
Introduction
Stereoscopic technology (a.k.a. ‘‘3D’’) is rapidly becoming
ubiquitous. Also known as binocular parallax, stereoscopy
refers to a visualization process created by showing slightly
different viewing angles of the same image to the left and
to the right eye to convey a sense of depth on the person.
Audiences, especially children, have demonstrated a strong
interest in stereoscopic presentations across all forms of
media. Children of today may grow up never knowing a
time when movies, television and video games were not
available in 3D.
While stereoscopic visualizations have been used in sci-
ence education for over a century (Gurevitch and Ross 2013;
Holford and Kempa 1970; Kennedy 1936; Wheatstone
1852), rapid decrease in the cost of stereoscopic equipment
combined with an associated expansion of stereoscopic
content has significantly increased their availability to edu-
cators of today. However, much of this interest in the use of
stereoscopic visualizations can be traced to the novelty of the
technology (Brown 2013), rather than the affordances cre-
ated by the technology. While novelty can be a powerful
motivator to generate learning (Bunzeck and Duzel 2006),
due to its transitory nature, novelty-induced learning does
not create a real, sustainable impact on learning.
Informal education settings such as museums and
planetariums have pioneered the use of stereoscopy for
Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9500-1) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.
C. A. Price (&)
Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
C. A. Price � K. Malatesta
American Association of Variable Star Observers, Cambridge,
MA, USA
H.-S. Lee
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
123
J Sci Educ Technol
DOI 10.1007/s10956-014-9500-1
educating and entertaining the public. When stereoscopy
required large equipment investments, they had the means
and infrastructure to implement it. Such informal settings
also had a financial incentive since enhanced visitor
interest could increase admissions and member support. As
a result, early stereoscopic visualizations were grounded in
cinema and film theories, rather than educational theories
(Trotter 2004). However, the field has recently begun using
stereoscopic visualizations with a more clearly defined
learning agenda (Dukes and Bruton 2008; Fraser et al.
2012).
The educational potential of stereoscopic presentations
lies in their ability to increase realism by presenting the
spatial dimension of depth. Two-dimensional representa-
tions hide the depth dimension of real objects, forcing the
viewer to rely on other cues (such as shading) to perceive a
three-dimensional image. Researchers have reported
learning outcomes with stereoscopic visualizations that
vary widely ranging from positive (Drascic 1991; Holford
and Kempa 1970), null (Cid and Lopez 2010; Cliburn and
Krantz 2008; Keebler 2011; Kim, Ellis, Tyler, Hannaford
and Stark 1987), to mixed (Barfield and Rosenberg 1995;
Hansen et al. 2004; Hsu et al. 1994; LaViola and Litwiller
2011; Reinhart 1991; Trindade et al. 2002). As with most
learning technologies, stereoscopy’s impact is greater when
paired with subject matter or cognitive tasks which are
linked to the unique properties of that technology. For
example, some of the more recent published successes of
stereoscopy in learning have been in the fields that invoke
higher spatial cognitive load such as astronomy (Isik-Ercan
et al. 2012), chemistry (Wu and Shah 2004) and geology
(Dukes and Bruton 2008).
However, there is a surprisingly limited amount of
randomized, experimental studies on the impact of stere-
oscopy on science learning and in particular with chil-
dren—whether in formal or informal settings. Considering
the explosive growth of the technology, it is time to
investigate whether and how stereoscopy can be advanta-
geous for young learners. In this study, we chose a simple
informal education context—children attending a major
science museum. Children are the target audience of sci-
ence museums, and their development of spatial abilities is
evolving rapidly. Yet, they are largely excluded from ste-
reoscopy studies. Most stereoscopic study results available
in the literature focus on adults and workforce training.
The research question we ask in this study is as follows:
Do children perceive spatial elements of scientific objects
differently when presented with stereoscopic versus 2D
images? To answer this, we designed an experimental
study where children viewed 13 scientific objects, each of
which was randomly displayed in either 2D or stereoscopic
format. After each slide, children were asked two questions
about a spatial aspect of the image. After all the slides were
shown, the child was asked to draw from memory the last
slide they saw. To control for a novelty effect associated
with stereoscopic images, all children wore 3D glasses,
regardless of whether they viewed 2D or stereoscopic
images and received pre-training to get used to the exper-
imental setup. We also recorded their prior experience with
stereoscopic technology in their homes.
We begin with a literature review of stereoscopy in
education, especially in the informal world, and cognitive
load and spatial cognition theories relevant to stereoscopy.
We then describe our hypotheses, research process and
tasks we used with visualizations. Next, we summarize the
results and interpret them through our theoretical frame-
work. Implications are drawn for the use of stereoscopy in
both formal and informal learning settings along with new
research directions. Finally, we describe limitations of this
study and present a conclusion.
Literature Review
Stereoscopy in Education
Stereoscopy adds a physiological sense of depth (using the
same left/right eye parallax that we use in normal vision) to
images that otherwise only provided depth information
through visual cues (like shadows or the changing sizes of
objects relative to their distance from the observer). The
informal education field is quite familiar with stereoscopic
technology. One of the earliest uses in this realm was in the
1970s when the Adler Planetarium collaborated with the
ViewMaster company to create stereoscopic space art
(SubbaRao, personal communication, November 15, 2013).
The main goal of this, and many other earlier uses, was to
use the novel technology to draw visitor attention. Its
learning potential emerged through the development of
immersive technology such as the CAVE (Cruz-Neira et al.
1993) and virtual reality (Roussou 2000). More recently, it
is being used to create virtual museums (Patel et al. 2003),
physical kiosks to extend exhibitions on the museum floor
(Lo et al. 2004) and as a presentation format for digital
planetariums (Fluke and Bourke 2005; Lantz 2011) and
large format film theaters (Fraser et al. 2012). An evalua-
tion of a stereoscopic film shown in a museum found that
audiences who watched the film in 2D self-reported higher
learning than those who watched it in stereo, yet the stereo
group reported increased attitude gains and sense of
entertainment (Apley et al. 2008).
Stereoscopy has been used for vocational training for
decades. For pilot training, it is believed that stereoscopic
simulations lower the cognitive effort by presenting a more
realistic environment that requires less mental translation
(Nataupsky and Crittenden 1988; Williams and Parrish
J Sci Educ Technol
123
1990; Mowafy and Thurman 1993). For medicine, stere-
oscopy is used to present an environment where attention
to spatial detail is paramount, such as when used during
minimally invasive surgery (van Beurden et al. 2012). For
astrophysics, it has been used to help communicate mul-
tidimensional data sets and models (Vogt and Wagner
2012). In all of these cases, the stereoscopy’s advantage is
in a more realistic display—even though the specifics of
which differ among contexts. These realistic displays les-
sen the cognitive load needed to process the images,
freeing it for use on other tasks.
From the research perspective, advantages of stereo-
scopic technology related to science learning are con-
founded with the special treatment subjects in the
stereoscopic condition receive, such as wearing special
glasses and receiving training to use glasses. This enhances
interest and motivation because the experience is new
(Brown 2013; Keebler 2011). This novelty effect has been
often cited as a potential explanation for the positive
effects of stereoscopic presentations (Yim et al. 2012), and
there have been calls to study how people adapt to stere-
oscopy over time (Pietschmann et al. 2013). Interest in
stereoscopy ebbs and flows over time (Gurevitch and Ross
2013)—the novelty wears off, interest wanes and then
comes back again when it is once again novel. Therefore,
in studies comparing viewers’ cognitive performances
between stereoscopic and 2D visualizations, it is important
to control for the novelty effect. Yet we were unable to
locate any empirical studies about stereoscopy that did so.
Cognitive Load
Cognitive load theory can explain why people perceive
objects differently when they see the objects in 2D and
stereoscopic formats. According to cognitive load theory,
learning is dependent on appropriate use of working
memory (Sweller 1988), which acts as a conduit to long-
term memory storage. Cognitive load increases according
to simultaneous demands for working memory. Working
memory includes two distinct channels: auditory/verbal
and visual/spatial. Effective multimedia learning environ-
ments treat them separately without overloading either
(Mayer 2005). Aspects of cognitive load can be measured
by task performance and task completion time (Paas et al.
2003). Using both can lead to more accurate cognitive load
measurement and analysis, as long as they are reported
independently and not grouped together into one measure
(Kirschner et al. 2011).
There are three types of cognitive load: intrinsic,
extraneous and germane. Our study focuses on the first two.
Intrinsic cognitive load is inherent difficulty associated
with a specific topic. For example, understanding acceler-
ation demands a higher intrinsic cognitive load than
understanding velocity. Extraneous cognitive load has to
do with the ways in which information related to a topic is
delivered to learners. Instructional material designs can
affect and manipulate extraneous cognitive loads by adding
or increasing demand of various working memory
channels.
Studies of stereoscopic visualizations have been focused
around its effect on cognitive load. Some have shown that
it increases extrinsic cognitive load by placing demands on
the visual channel due to increased sensory input (Kooi and
Toet 2004; Okuyama 1999; Price and Lee 2010). Stereo-
scopic projection also requires more fidelity to realism,
which can lead to mental discomfort and fatigue if the
visualization environment is not accurately presented
(Lambooij et al. 2009; de Winter et al. 2007). However,
other researchers have found that stereoscopy can lower
extraneous cognitive load by reducing visual demands
(Lopez and Hamed 2004; Nemire 1998; Pepper et al.
1981), possibly by reducing the mental effort needed to
process depth by offloading some of the mental work
needed to process visual depth cues onto the body’s
physiological ability to process parallax. Thus, there is no
consensus on whether stereoscopy reduces or increases
extraneous cognitive load. This leads to an interesting
possibility that the stereoscopy’s impact on extraneous
cognitive load may be dependent upon task, population or
both.
Stereoscopy and Spatial Cognition
Spatial cognition has been linked to achievement in all
STEM fields and is of special concern in science education
(NRC 2006; Wai et al. 2009). Spatial cognition is multi-
faceted (Shipley et al. 2014) with a commonly accepted
characteristic being mental visualization (Michael et al.
1957), referring to the ability to mentally view and
manipulate objects. While stereoscopy may not create an
ubiquitous impact on task performance, it has shown more
consistent positive results with spatial manipulation tasks
(McIntire et al. 2014) and others have speculation that
some of the null results reported in stereoscopy studies
could be due to spatial ability of the subjects (Vendeland
and Regenbrecht 2013).
While a single spatial development theory continues to
elude the field, it is generally believed that children have
mastered basic spatial relations by the time they start
school (NRC et al. 2006). They continue to develop more
advanced ability (Piaget 1956), but at difference paces
(Newcombe 2010). When developing a new spatial skill,
children with lower spatial ability often progress more
slowly in the beginning and then eventually pick up speed.
Higher ability children progress at a more consistent pace,
without the hindrance of an initial hump they must
J Sci Educ Technol
123
overcome. Thus, introduction of stereoscopy could
adversely affect lower-ability children since it adds a new
novelty factor during the time in which they are being
introduced to a new learning topic. Also, it can add addi-
tional physical discomfort in children who cannot adapt
quickly to a new visuospatial technology (Polonen et al.
2013).
Part of this study’s hypothesis is that stereoscopic
visualizations will lower cognitive load, which will in turn
assist learning. There are a number of assessments for
mental visualization. Aitsiselmi and Holliman (2009)
found a stereoscopic performance advantage with the
classic Vandenberg and Kuse (1978) spatial rotations test.
However, studies using the Purdue Spatial Visualization-
Rotations Test (PSVT) (Bodner and Guay 1997) did not
find a stereoscopic advantage (Price and Lee 2010; Ta-
kahashi and Connolly 2012). Further, neither found an
advantage to task performance under stereoscopic condi-
tions, but the latter study found the stereoscopic items took
longer to complete, indicating increased extraneous cog-
nitive load. Kozhevnikov et al. (2002) found stereoscopy
enhanced performance on mental rotation tasks only when
implemented in an immersive environment. It is likely that
the benefit of stereoscopy to assisting mental rotation is
task- and context-specific.
Methodology
Hypotheses
Based on the literature review, we hypothesized the fol-
lowing: First, there would be a difference between scores
between the two presentation formats, and that difference
would be in the form of enhanced stereoscopic perfor-
mance because it would require less mental manipulation
of the observed image. The second hypothesis was that the
difference would be negatively related to prior spatial
ability because the simplification of the mental processing
needed would preferentially help those with lower spatial
ability. Finally, we hypothesized that there would not be a
difference between the amount of time it took to process
each image and answer its associated questions because
cognitive load would not be very high on either presenta-
tion format.
Research Setting
In comparing the effects associated with stereoscopic and
two-dimensional presentations of scientific objects, we
designed an experimental study with children attending a
large, urban science museum in the northeastern USA. A
tabletop kiosk was setup on the museum floor with a large
flat screen monitor, laptop computer and anaglyph (red/
blue) glasses. Families were recruited as they walked
through the exhibit space. Data collection occurred through
two, 3-h shifts per week during a 10-month period span-
ning from October to July. Families were not compensated
for their participation. The study sample consisted of 261
children, aged 5–12 (mean = 8.3 years). Among the chil-
dren, 56 % were male and 44 % female. About 14 % of
parents said they owned a stereoscopic television or video
game system at home. Less than 1 % reported any color
blindness or other visual disability.
Procedures
The session focused on a slideshow facilitated by a
research assistant working with a single child at a time. To
begin, the child sat down in front of the kiosk while
wearing anaglyph glasses (Fig. 1). The testing process used
computer software that (1) presented to the child with an
image slide followed by questions related to the slide and
(2) recorded the child’s responses through the research
assistant. Slides were displayed against a black background
on the top half of the computer monitor. Below the slide,
questions and answer choices appeared in black text
against a white background. The research assistant read the
question and answer choices to the child and then recorded
his/her answer by clicking on the appropriate response with
a mouse. The software recorded the session ID, slide dis-
played, question asked, presentation format, the answer
selected and the time to respond. The first five slides
consisted of five items selected from the Purdue Spatial
Visualization-Rotation (PSVT) Test (Bodner and Guay
1997). The PSVT was chosen for this study because it
measures mental visualization ability, which is a skill used
when processing depth cues in images. Also, it has been
often used in other stereoscopic studies. However, it was
originally designed for adults. To test feasibility of these
items to children, we piloted the PSVT items with 30
children prior to this study and chose five that represented a
broad range of difficulty appropriate for their age. Next,
four training slides with scientific objects were shown.
These were stereoscopic images with associated multiple-
choice questions designed to familiarize the children with
the stereoscopic images and testing format. An example
slide was that of a life size dinosaur model with the
question ‘‘How many legs does this dinosaur have?’’ with
four answer choices ranging from one to four. After the
training slides, the software showed 13 slides used for
official data collection. Slide order was consistent across
individual sessions with children. However, the presenta-
tion format of each slide (2D or stereo) was randomly
determined. Each slide had two associated questions. In a
complete session, each scientific object was shown twice,
J Sci Educ Technol
123
once with each question, for a total of 26 question and
answer pairs. After the last slide, the software prompted the
child to draw the last image they saw, which was a hurri-
cane (Fig. 2). They were asked to remove the glasses and
received a pencil and a piece of paper from the research
assistant. Museum policy limited session lengths to 15 min.
So if 12 min had passed since the session began, the
software skipped to the final drawing question. Most chil-
dren (96 %) completed the entire set of 13 slides. Children
were allowed to take their time while finishing the final
drawing.
Instrument: Visualizations, Questions and Scoring
The 13 slides represented a wide range of objects across
science domains and scales. They included pictures of
microscopic pollen, the helix nebula, dinosaur bones,
fractals, butterflies, flowers, the Martian landscape, cacti,
macroscopic bee photographs, satellite imagery of a hur-
ricane and photography of a space shuttle piggybacked on a
747 aircraft. The first question assigned to each image
addressed a spatial element. For example, for a bee image,
the question asked, ‘‘This is a picture of a bee sticking out
its tongue. Is the tongue straight or curly?’’ When viewed
in 2D, the tongue appears to have a slight bend in it
(Fig. 3). When viewed stereoscopically, the bend is much
more pronounced because of the added sense of depth. The
second question asked of an image addressed a real-world
application associated with the spatial element at the focus
of the first question. For the bee slide, the second question
asked, ‘‘Bees use their tongue to get nectar from the inside
of flowers. Can the bee on the picture get nectar from a
flower that is curved on the inside?’’ with the answer
choices of ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No.’’ For the purposes of this ana-
lysis, we refer to all of the former questions as ‘‘Percep-
tion’’ questions and all of the latter as ‘‘Application’’
questions. Table 1 includes all questions we used in this
study.
Children’s responses to five PSVT items and 26 ques-
tions related to 13 slides containing scientific objects were
recorded by the software into a MySQL database and then
loaded into PASW Statistics 18 (a.k.a. SPSS) for analysis.
Children’s answers to the five PSVT items were coded as
correct (score 1) and incorrect (score 0). Each child was
Fig. 1 A child is guided through the live facilitated slideshow by a
research assistant on the museum floor
Fig. 2 A 2D image of Hurricane Alberto used in this study. A
stereoscopic version is available as Online Resource 1. Credit: NASA/
GSFC/JPL, MISR Team (National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration 2000)
Fig. 3 2D image of a bee used in this study. A stereoscopic version is
available as Online Resource 2. Credit: White (2011)
J Sci Educ Technol
123
Table 1 List of questions, images and question types
Question
ID
Image
description
Item stem and response options
Bee-P See Fig. 3 This is a close-up picture of a bee
sticking out its tongue. Is the
tongue straight or curly?
Straight
Curved
Bee-A Bees use their tongue to get nectar
from the inside of flowers. Can the
bee on the picture get nectar
from a flower that is curved
on the inside?
No
Yes
Butterfly-
P
Overhead
photograph of
a flying
Monarch
butterfly and a
floating leaf
over a black-
and-white
surface
Where is the butterfly?
On the ground
In the air
Butterfly-
A
The butterfly is…Resting
Flying
Landing
Cacti-P Photograph of a
sandy desert
with assorted
cacti and hills
in the
background
How many cactus plants are in this
picture?
10
50
100
Cacti-A Is there enough room to
put up a tent for a
family of four?
Yes
No
Petals-P Macro-
photograph of
a red flower in
sunlight with
surrounding
flowers closed
and/or in
shadow
How many petals does the large, red/
pink flower have?
10
20
30
Petals-A Does the large, red/pink flower
in this picture create a lot of
shade for the plants below
it?
Yes
No
Red-P Is the large, red flower pointed at the
Sun?
At the top
To the left
To the right
Red-A Is the large, red flower facing the
Sun?
Yes
No
Only partially
Table 1 continued
Question
ID
Image
description
Item stem and response options
Pollen-P Black-and-
white, high-
contrast
microscopic
image of
mostly round
pollen grains
sitting within a
cavity
This is a picture of pollen grains
magnified by a microscope. How
many pollen grains do you see?
10
20
30
Pollen-A Some people with allergies sneeze
when they inhale pollen grains. Do
you think this is enough pollen to
make someone sneeze?
Yes
No
Grains-P This is a picture of pollen grains
magnified by a microscope. How
smooth are the surfaces of these
pollen grains?
Mostly smooth
Mostly rough
Equal mixture of smooth and rough
Grains-A This is a picture of pollen grains
magnified by a microscope. Do you
think it would be easy for pollen
grains like this to collect in a flower
that is slippery and wet?
Yes
No
Maybe
Fossil-P Color
photograph of
a brown
fossilized
stone sitting
on a table. The
stone has the
rough shape of
a tree trunk
fallen on its
side
This is a fossil of a large dinosaur
bone. Which is longer?
Top to bottom
Left to right
Fossil-A What kind of bone do you think it is?
Finger
Leg
Back
Nebula-P Color
photograph of
a spherical
nebula (the
Helix) with a
blue interior
with
surrounding
red rings
against a
backdrop of
black sky and
stars
This is a cloud of dust and gas in
space. You can see a small star
right in the middle of the cloud. Is
it:
Behind the cloud
Inside the cloud
In front of the cloud
Nebula-A Which do you think is true of the star
right in the middle of the cloud?
The star is further away from us than
the cloud
The star is closer to us than the
cloud
The star is the same distance to us
than the cloud
J Sci Educ Technol
123
assigned a single, normalized spatial score based on the
average number of correct answers. Since the 26 perception
and application questions did not have correct or incorrect
answers, the responses to the questions were treated as
categorical responses. We examined whether significant
differences were present between 2D and stereoscopic
presentation formats in children’s responses to each ques-
tion. The amount of time taken for the child to answer each
question was recorded in seconds.
The drawings were coded by two pairs of independent
researchers using two rubrics: one for the eye of a hurri-
cane and the other for the surrounding clouds (Table 2).
After the first pair recorded their scores, the drawings for
which they did not agree then were evaluated by a second
pair of researchers. The second pair recoded them using the
same rubrics. The drawings that still did not have an
agreement from this second pair had the scores for both
compared from all four coders. If there was a majority
agreement, that code was adopted. The second pair of
researchers negotiated a final code for the few drawings
without majority agreement.
The drawings were of a satellite image of the 2002
Hurricane Alberto. When viewed stereoscopically, the
clouds in the eye and in the center of the outer cloud bands
appear higher than the rest of the image. As the parts of the
image with the most sense of depth, we chose those areas as
the focus of two rubrics we used to code children’s draw-
ings. First, the eye rubric is based on the complexity of the
eye shown in the child’s drawings. We used an ordinal scale
of 0–3 with 0 meaning no eye was present, 1 meaning a
simple circle described the eye, 2 meaning clouds were
drawn inside the eye and 3 meaning the eye was defined by
a wall of clouds (‘‘eye wall’’). For the eye rubric, reliability
of the final codes was j = 0.87, indicating almost perfect
Table 1 continued
Question
ID
Image
description
Item stem and response options
Hurricane-
P
See Fig. 2 This is a satellite picture of a
hurricane over the ocean.
The hole in the middle is called
the ‘‘eye.’’ There are some
clouds inside the ‘‘eye.’’ How high
are the clouds in the middle of the
eye?
Below the rest of the hurricane
As high as the rest of the hurricane
clouds
Above the rest of the hurricane
Hurricane-
A
On which area of the hurricane would
you see the most rain if you were
under it?
The eye
The clouds near the eye
The clouds farther away from the
eye
Mars-P Black-and-white
photograph of
a Martian
landscape with
a solitary hill
in the
background
(Mt. Sharp)
and parts of
the rover and
its shadow in
the foreground
This is a picture from the
planet Mars. There is a round
hill in the background. How tall is
it when compared with objects on
Earth?
As tall as a tree
As tall as a building
As tall as a mountain
Mars-A On the right side is part of the
robot that took the picture.
If the robot moves as fast as
you can walk, how long will
it take to go from where it is
to the top of the hill in the
background?
Hours
Days
Weeks
Shuttle-P Color
photograph of
a space shuttle
piggybacked
on the back of
a 747 in flight
This is a space shuttle riding on top
of a jet airplane. How does the jet
airplane’s tail compare to the space
shuttle’s tail?
It is SMALLER than the space
shuttle’s tail
It is about the SAME size as the
space shuttle’s tail
It is LONGER than the space
shuttle’s tail
Shuttle-A In general, having a big tail makes an
aircraft more stable in flight. Which
aircraft do you think is more stable
when flying alone?
Space shuttle
Jet airplane
Table 1 continued
Question
ID
Image
description
Item stem and response options
Fractal-P A representation
of a spiral
fractal with
Christmas
tree-like
repeating
structures
using a green
palette.
Brighter
colors
represent parts
of the fractal
closer to the
viewer
This picture is called fractal art, and
it is drawn using numbers instead
of paintbrushes. Which part of the
picture looks closer to you?
The white part
The green part
The black part
Fractal-A Do all the pieces in this picture have
the same pattern?
Yes
No
J Sci Educ Technol
123
agreement according to Landis and Koch’ (1977) guide-
lines. Of all 231 drawings, 19 needed negotiation to reach a
final score.
Second, the cloud rubric was based on the distribution
of clouds in the child’s drawings. It used an ordinal scale
from 0 to 3 with 0 meaning no clouds were drawn, 1
meaning clouds were present in an irregular or random
distribution, and 2 meaning the clouds were distributed in
a circular shape. The highest score of 3 was given when
the clouds approximated a spiral distribution around a
center. Spiral clouds of a hurricane were defined as
having an arm that does not form a full circle and one
part of the arm is closer to the center than the rest of the
arm. For the cloud rubric, reliability of the final codes
was j = 0.86, indicating almost perfect agreement. Of all
drawings, 35 needed negotiation to reach a final cloud
rubric score.
Analysis
The first stage of our analysis was to explore distributions
of children’s responses to each of the 23 questions asso-
ciated with 13 images. First, the responses to the perception
and application questions were compared using chi-square
statistics. We combined all of the responses to the per-
ception questions into the perception response category and
all of the responses to the application questions into the
application response category. Then, we compared the
distributions of children’s responses to each category by
presentation format (2D vs. stereoscopic). Next, we com-
pared responses at the question level to determine whether
significant differences existed between presentation for-
mats in each question. Finally, we compared the amount of
time children spent on individual questions between the
two presentation formats.
The second stage of our analysis was based on chil-
dren’s drawings of a hurricane. We examined possible
relationships between complexity of the children’s draw-
ings with their demographic variables, background in ste-
reoscopic experiences and spatial abilities (demonstrated in
PSVT scores). First, we classified how the child saw the
hurricane slide. Because each slide was shown twice, with
presentation format randomly determined for each display,
a child could have seen the slides in one of three possible
ways: (1) those who saw 2D hurricane images in both
perception and application questions, (2) those who saw a
2D image in one question but saw a stereoscopic image in
the other question and (3) those who saw stereoscopic
images for both questions. We created a categorical vari-
able called presentation format to account for those three
ways. Next, we looked for differences in the scores on each
rubric through ANCOVAs with the presentation format as
an independent variable and the eye and cloud scores as
dependent variables. Covariates in the ANCOVAs were
spatial ability (the number of correct answers on the PSVT
test), gender (female vs. male) and 3D experience (yes vs.
no). Probability of making a type 1 error was set at
a = 0.05.
Table 2 Coding rubric for drawing tasks
Code Description Example
Eye wall rubric
3 (Eye
wall)
Eye is defined by clouds or
a line that shows
structure within it
2 (Eye with
clouds)
Eye has clouds present
within it, but they do not
define it
1 (Eye
present)
Eye is defined by non-
cloudlike lines
0 (No eye) No discernable eye is
present
Cloud rubric
3 (Spiral
clouds)
At least one band is bent
around a center. One part
of the band needs to be
closer to the center than
another
2 (Circular
clouds)
Clouds form a circle or
semicircle (at least 75 %
around a center). One
circle is enough
1 (Irregular
clouds)
Clouds are random in
shape and distribution
0 (No
clouds)
No discernable clouds are
present
IRR for the eye rubric was j = 0.51 and j = 0.59 for the first and
second rounds of coding, respectively. IRR for the cloud rubric was
j = 0.31 and j = 0.44
J Sci Educ Technol
123
Results
Scores on the PSVT items were positively skewed with one
correct answer representing the mode and 1.6 (.23) as the
mean (Fig. 4), indicating that children are still developing
their spatial abilities. Considering the children’s age dis-
tribution ranging from 5 to 12 years in our study, this is not
surprising as the test was primarily designed for an older
population.
Regarding the questions associated with 13 images, we
found no significant difference in the overall distribution of
scores between 2D and stereo responses on either the per-
ception question group, v2 = 4.53, p = 0.104, or the
application question group, v2 = 1.91, p = 0.384. The
average time needed to answer an item was remarkably
similar between the two presentation formats. The com-
bined 2D slides and their corresponding questions took an
average of 14.3 s per slide to complete, and stereo slides
took an average of 14.1 s per slide, but that difference is not
significant according to t test, t(8,488) = 1.43, p = 0.154.
Question-level comparisons between 2D and stereo-
scopic presentation formats found significant differences in
seven of the 26 items (Table 3). For the Butterfly-A item,
the main difference was fewer selections for the first option
in the stereo presentation format. This means stereoscopic
viewers were more likely to choose an option that reflected
the butterfly in flight as opposed to rest. For the Cacti-P
item, the main difference was that stereoscopic viewers
were more likely to choose the third option, reflecting a
higher estimate of number of cacti in the image For the
Petals-P item, the main difference was in more stereoscopic
responses for the first option, reflecting a lower estimate of
the number of petals in the image. For the Red-A item,
more than twice the number of stereoscopic viewers chose
the first option over 2D viewers. Thus, stereoscopic
viewers were more likely to conclude the flower was facing
the Sun. For the Hurricane-P item, the main difference was
that stereoscopic viewers were more likely to choose the
first option, meaning they thought the eye would hold the
most rainfall. For the Fractal-P item, the main difference
was that stereoscopic viewers were more likely to choose
the first option, reflecting a greater sense that the white
areas of the fractal were closer to the viewer. Finally, for
the Fractal-A item, the main difference was that stereo-
scopic viewers were more likely to choose the second
option, reflecting a belief that the patterns in the image
were more unique and less repetitive.
Overall, we were unable to find a consistent theme
between the six images represented by the seven items that
showed significant differences between the two formats.
We looked at scale, scientific domain, realism (photograph
or other representational type), and presence of other depth
cues (e.g., shadows). We also categorized the images
according to the content of question that was asked (e.g.,
combined all questions that involved comparing depth
location of objects into one score), but there were no
underlying commonalities that could explain systemati-
cally significant differences among the questions.
Fig. 4 Scores on the items from the Purdue Visualization-Rotations
Test (PSVT)
Table 3 Frequencies for responses to each question item
Item 2D response
count
Stereoscopic
response count
Chi
square
p value
1 2 3 1 2 3
Bee-P 15 110 – 13 119 – .432 .806
Bee-A 43 103 – 27 84 – 2.28 .320
Butterfly-P 34 91 – 36 91 – .089 .765
Butterfly-A 29 46 49 15 57 55 6.39 .041*
Cacti-P 6 57 56 5 41 92 12.3 .002**
Cacti-A 86 45 – 98 28 – 3.25 0.072
Petals-P 3 80 39 18 82 35 8.70 0.013*
Petals-A 82 44 – 85 46 – 0.02 0.898
Red-P 33 62 6 31 73 2 14.03 .133
Red-A 33 7 52 68 0 47 12.86 .002**
Pollen-P 26 87 20 24 80 20 0.17 0.919
Pollen-A 102 26 – 102 27 – 0.157 0.692
Grains-P 7 34 62 12 31 61 3.37 0.186
Grains-A 19 22 62 7 34 62 0.056 0.972
Fossil-P 14 120 – 7 116 – 1.512 0.219
Fossil-A 13 64 44 17 67 51 0.231 0.891
Nebula-P 69 43 16 49 59 20 7.91 .019*
Nebula-A 74 13 38 75 16 39 1.18 0.554
Hurricane-P 69 20 32 96 15 18 15.66 \0.000***
Hurricane-A 35 67 42 19 60 26 3.30 .192
Mars-P 26 30 71 34 30 61 2.08 0.354
Mars-A 67 29 13 85 42 16 .301 0.860
Shuttle-P 32 3 95 35 6 86 1.90 0.387
Shuttle-A 19 116 – 11 111 – .895 .344
Fractal-P 85 17 12 128 11 1 16.9 \0.000***
Fractal-A 77 48 – 65 62 – 9.56 .002**
* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001
J Sci Educ Technol
123
On the eye rubric for the hurricane drawing task, an
ANCOVA with all covariates present showed no signifi-
cant difference among the three presentation formats,
F(2,225) = 0.80, p = 0.55 (Table 4). However, we did
find a statistically significant difference between the pre-
sentation formats for the cloud rubric, F(2,225) = 3.11,
p = 0.047, with a small effect size, g2 = 0.047 (Table 5).
For those who only saw the slide in 2D, the mean score was
1.80 (.813), for those who saw it once in 2D and once in
stereo, the mean score was 1.81 (.798), and for those who
saw it only in stereoscopic format, the mean score was 2.12
(0.812) (Fig. 5).Regarding the covariates, both spatial
ability and 3D experience showed significant effects.
Spatial ability accounted for 5 % of the variance, and 3D
experience accounted for 6 %. Gender did not show a
significant effect, but the effect size was small enough to
diminish our ability to detect a gender effect.
Discussion
Does stereoscopic presentation help children perceive
spatial elements of scientific objects as seen in static
images? In our results, stereoscopy did not significantly
alter how children answered the spatial questions about the
images. Our literature review and prior work suggested that
stereoscopy could increase cognitive load, thus adversely
affect learning—especially in children with low spatial
ability. Cognitive load can be measured through both
response to tasks and time spent on task (Paas et al. 2003).
In this case, neither differed between presentation formats
indicating no change in cognitive load. One can argue that
more time spent on images can lead to better understanding
of the scientific objects depicted in the images, meaning
cognitive load associated with images was germane to the
learning process. Other studies have shown no increase in
cognitive load in stereoscopic environments associated
with pilot training (Nemire 1998), remote vehicle control
(Pepper et al. 1981) or watching Hollywood movies
(Bombeke et al. 2013), but they were not focused on
learning. Our study, which was based on learning, did not
uncover any differences between presentation format.
The lack of differences could be due to our research
design involving randomized presentation formats while
limiting extraneous cognitive load and controlling for the
novelty factor. First, we implemented many design com-
ponents to minimize cognitive load including using only
static imagery, including a training period at the start of the
session and having the research assistant read the questions
and record the answers. Second, we attempted to control
and alleviate the novelty effect. We controlled for it by
requiring the child to wear the 3D glasses during the entire
session (thus not revealing to the child whether the image
was in 2D or stereo) and by treating their at-home expe-
rience with stereoscopy as a controlling variable in the
analysis. We attempted to alleviate it through the training
period, which provided an opportunity to get used to the
equipment before data collection began. Adapting our
study design to consider these two aspects is important
because it more closely mirrors the situations children will
experience when using stereoscopy for learning. Due to
resource limitations, most educational uses of stereoscopy
do not include highly engaging and immersive environ-
ments, but instead use more affordable and easy to setup
Table 4 Analysis of variance for eye rubric scores
Source df F g2 q
Fixed effects
Consistent display (2D, stereo, mixed) 2 0.80 0.018 0.552
Covariates
Spatial ability 1 1.14 0.005 0.288
3D experience at home 1 0.798 0.004 0.373
Gender 1 1.01 0.005 0.315
* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01
Table 5 Analysis of variance for cloud rubric scores
Source df F g2 q
Fixed effects
Consistent display (2D, stereo, mixed) 2 3.107 0.047 0.024*
Covariates
Spatial ability 1 5.31 0.024 0.022*
3D experience at home 1 0.423 0.002 0.516
Gender 1 0.949 0.057 0.331
* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01
Fig. 5 Mean scores on each rubric for the three categories of
presentation type
J Sci Educ Technol
123
stereoscopic displays such as the Geowall (Dukes and
Bruton 2008). Thus, we attempted to align our experiment
as closely as possible with real-world scenarios.
Differences between 2D and stereoscopic presentation
formats began to appear in the drawing task, though not
always reaching significance. The drawing task was clearly
a cognitively different, and more demanding, task than
answering multiple-choice questions about an image. The
child had to recall the image and reproduce it in a format
different from what they originally saw it. The hurricane
slide had two elements that appeared more clearly in the
stereoscopic image compared to the 2D image: the pre-
sence of cumulus clouds that appear to float within the eye
wall and the presence of high cloud tops along the center of
the outer cloud bands. We chose those elements for the
analysis because they were the most noticeable. We found
that how the children drew the eye was not affected by
whether they saw the slide in 2D, stereo or mixed modes
(presentation format). However, how they saw a hurricane
slide did influence their ability to draw the shape of the
cloud bands of the hurricane. Children who saw it only in
the stereoscopic format drew more sophisticated repre-
sentations than those who saw it in only 2D or in both 2D
and stereoscopic formats. This indicates that the benefit of
stereoscopy can emerge through a sustained exposure and
be easily dampened by inconsistent exposure. This can be
explained by much of the literature which found visual
depth cues must consistently represent the same levels of
depth as the stereo parallax or else cause discomfort in the
viewer (Lambooij et al. 2009; Patterson and Silzars 2009).
Inconsistencies that are not noticed in 2D displays may
suddenly become apparent when seen in stereo, potentially
causing confusion (Pfautz 2001). In this study, children
who saw the hurricane slide in both 2D and stereoscopi-
cally did not get the same benefit as those who only saw it
in stereo—so the child had inconsistent experiences. If
consistent and sustained exposure is necessary for children
to benefit from stereoscopic visualizations, then results of
our current study can be in part explained by the fact that
children spent about the same amount of time in each
image regardless of the presentation format. There was not
enough sustained exposure of any particular image to
perform a complex task.
So when is the right time to use stereoscopy? Our study
suggests that the wholesale approach of applying stereos-
copy to a lesson or general educational experience does not
appear to be justified. We argue that stereoscopy should be
matched to the task and individual in mind (van den Ho-
ogen et al. 2012). McIntire et al. (2012) also suggest that
stereoscopic displays should be ‘‘wielded delicately and
applied carefully’’ and not used for tasks where it is not
needed. For example, Rapp et al. (2007) found that more
complex maps showed a greater learning benefit with
stereoscopic representation than simpler maps. Our results
indicated that stereoscopy can show greater benefit when
used with more cognitively demanding tasks, in this case
tasks that involve visually reproducing what they saw from
memory.
Children in particular have more difficulty thinking from
an allocentric (third person) perspective with regard to
space and prefer to think of spatial relations egocentrically,
using themselves as the central reference point (Piaget
1956). So stereoscopy may help when children are asked to
think allocentrically, such as when working with maps, and
the added realism of stereoscopy can overcome the
diminished sense of presence caused by an allocentric
perspective.
Cognitive load theory suggests that various modes of
multimedia learning (visual, textual, aural, etc.) are already
in high demand in fully immersive experiences. It is in
these situations that stereoscopy may help. The evidence,
both in this study and from the literature, seems clear that
stereoscopy has limited benefit when used with simple
visualizations and tasks. It is best used for more complex
and demanding situations. For example, video may be a
more appropriate venue for stereoscopy. Most of the
established education literature on stereoscopy has focused
on static imagery, while most of the literature on stereo-
scopic film is focused on virtual reality and workforce
training contexts. Thus, it is not a surprise that the latter
have consistently shown better results.
As the technology progresses, the affordability of ste-
reoscopy video for schools and museums is increasing. As
opposed to stereoscopic slide shows, stereoscopic films can
exposed the audience to a longer interaction with an object
by fluidly showing it from many angles and with many
different relations with its surroundings. This creates an
interesting speculation that a stereoscopic film can leave a
more accurate and lasting image of a highly spatial sci-
entific object. Museums may be able to apply stereoscopy
to advanced visualizations that involve full motion video of
spatial concepts. The logical next step in stereoscopic
research can be testing this speculation, perhaps with a
spatially complex assessment that uses viewer-originated
drawings or diagrams.
Limitations
There are multiple limitations to this study. First, our
measured time on task takes into account researcher time to
click buttons and read the question—but only two research
assistants were used to collect data and they have a com-
bined sample of 3,662 responses, so we think this effect is
consistent across all of the data between the two presen-
tation formats. Second, the type of stereoscopy we used,
J Sci Educ Technol
123
red/blue anaglyphs, tends to diminish vivid colors in the
images. So the final images the children saw were less
vivid than in true color photographs. Third, the study
population came from a large, urban science museum so
likely represents children with a greater interest in science
than the general population. Finally, the study design was
limited in two major ways. First, its randomized nature
prevented the same child from seeing images in both for-
mats for a question—so within-individual differences are
not controlled. Second, the questions were mostly sub-
jective, preventing the creation of master variables that
could be analyzed with GLM techniques, thus limiting the
predictive nature of the analysis.
Conclusion
This randomized, controlled trial was focused on the
difference between 2D and stereoscopic presentation for-
mats of static scientific visualizations shown to children in
a museum. We found no significant difference in how the
children responded to different types of questions about
the images nor in the amount of time it took them to
respond. However, we did find an increase in the level of
detail the stereoscopic group recreated when asked to
draw one of the previously viewed images. Results imply
that stereoscopy is not particularly beneficial for simple
visualizations and tasks and may be better suited for
children in more spatially complex learning situations. As
opposed to being a broad tool, stereoscopy should be used
in specific circumstances. A unique contribution of this
study is that it separated the effect of the visual experi-
ence from the novelty effect and other extraneous factors
so it could look precisely at more meaningful learning.
Further research is needed to (1) identify exactly what
types of visualizations and tasks would benefit from ste-
reoscopy and (2) compare the impact of long-term versus
short-term exposure to stereoscopy.
Acknowledgments This research was conducted in Living Labo-
ratory� at the Museum of Science, Boston. The project was funded by
National Science Foundation award DRL-1114645 and supported by
the American Association of Variable Star Observers under the
direction of Dr. Arne Henden. We thank Dr. Eric Chaisson, Dr. Janice
Gobert, Dr. Maria Roussou, Dr. Holly A. Taylor and Ryan Wyatt for
their advice on this project and manuscript. We also thank Justin
Harris and Rachel Fyler.
References
Aitsiselmi Y, Holliman NS (2009) Using mental rotation to
evaluate the benefits of stereoscopic displays. In: IS&T/SPIE
electronic imaging. International Society for Optics and
Photonics, pp 72370Q–72370Q
Apley A, Streitburger K, Scala J (2008) Dinosaurs alive: film
summative report submitted to Maryland Science Center. RMC
Research Corporation, Portsmouth
Barfield W, Rosenberg C (1995) Judgments of azimuth and elevation
as a function of monoscopic and binocular depth cues using a
perspective display. Human Factors J Human Factors Ergonom
Soc 37(1):173–181
Bodner GM, Guay RB (1997) The Purdue visualization of rotations
test. Chem Educ 2(4):1–17
Bombeke K, Van Looy J, Szmalec A, Duyck W (2013) Leaving the third
dimension: no measurable evidence for cognitive aftereffects of
stereoscopic 3D movies. J Soc Inform Display 21(4):159–166
Brown S (2013) From novelty to normal: 3DTV as special effect. Crit
Stud Telev Int J Telev Stud 8(3):33–46
Bunzeck N, Duzel E (2006) Absolute coding of stimulus novelty in
the human substantia nigra/VTA. Neuron 51(3):369–379
Cid XC, Lopez RE (2010) The impact of stereo display on student
understanding of phases of the moon. Astron Educ Rev 9(1):
010105
Cliburn D, Krantz J (2008) Towards an effective low-cost virtual
reality display system for education. J Comput Sci Coll 23(3):
147–153
Cruz-Neira C, Sandi DJ, DeFanti TA (1993) Surround-screen
projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation
of the CAVE. Commun ACM 35(6):64–72
De Winter JCF, Wieringa PA, Dankelman J, Mulder M, Van Paassen
MM, De Groot S (2007) Driving simulator fidelity and training
effectiveness. In: Proceedings of the 26th European annual
conference on human decision making and manual control,
Lyngby, Denmark
Drascic D (1991) Skill acquisition and task performance in teleop-
eration using monoscopic and stereoscopic video remote view-
ing. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics
society annual meeting, vol 35, No. 19. SAGE, pp 1367–1371
Dukes P, Bruton D (2008) A Geowall with physics and astronomy
applications. Phys Teach 46(3):180–183
Fluke CJ, Bourke PD (2005) Astronomy visualisation in reflection.
The Planetarian 34:10–15
Fraser J, Heimlich JE, Jacobsen J, Yocco V, Sickler J, Kisiel J, Stahl J
(2012) Giant screen film and science learning in museums. Mus
Manag Curatorship 27(2):179–195
Gurevitch L, Ross M (2013) Stereoscopic media: scholarship beyond
booms and busts. Public 24(47):83–93
Hansen J, Barnett M, MaKinster J, Keating T (2004) The impact of
three-dimensional computational modeling on student under-
standing of astronomical concepts: a quantitative analysis. Int J
Sci Educ 26(11):1365–1575
Holford DG, Kempa RF (1970) The effectiveness of stereoscopic
viewing in the learning of spatial relationships in structural
chemistry. J Res Sci Teach 7(3):265–270
Hsu J, Pizlo Z, Babbs CF, Chelberg DM, Delp EJ III (1994) Design of
studies to test the effectiveness of stereo imaging truth or dare: is
stereo viewing really better? In: IS&T/SPIE 1994 international
symposium on electronic imaging: science and technology.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 211–222
Isik-Ercan Z, Kim B, Nowak J (2012) Can 3D visualization assist in
young children’s understanding of Sun–Earth–Moon system? Int
J Knowl Soc Res 3(4):12–21
Keebler JR (2011) Effects of 3D stereoscopy, visuospatial working
memory, and perceptions of simulation experience on the
memorization of confusable objects. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Central Florida Orlando, FL
Kennedy C (1936) The development and use of stereo photography
for educational purposes. SMPTE Motion Imaging J 26(1):3–17
Kim WS, Ellis SR, Tyler ME, Hannaford B, Stark LW (1987)
Quantitative evaluation of perspective and stereoscopic displays
J Sci Educ Technol
123
in three-axis manual tracking tasks. IEEE Trans Syst Man
Cybern 17(1):61–72
Kirschner PA, Ayres P, Chandler P (2011) Contemporary cognitive
load theory research: the good, the bad and the ugly. Comput
Hum Behav 27(1):99–105
Kooi FL, Toet A (2004) Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays.
Displays 25(2–3):99–108
Kozhevnikov M, Hegarty M, Mayer RE (2002) Revising the
visualizer–verbalizer dimension: evidence for two types of
visualizers. Cogn Instr 20(1):47–77
Lambooij M, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I, IJsselsteijn W (2009) Visual
discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review.
J Imaging Sci Technol 53(3):30201-1
Lantz E (2011) Planetarium of the future. Curator Mus J
54(3):293–312
LaViola JJ Jr, Litwiller T (2011) Evaluating the benefits of 3d stereo
in modern video games. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM,
pp 2345–2354
Lo WY, Tsai YP, Chen CW, Hung YP (2004) Stereoscopic kiosk for
virtual museum. In: Proceedings of international computer
symposium. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Ministry
of Education, Republic of China
Lopez RE, Hamed K (2004) Student interpretations of 2-D and 3-D
renderings of the substorm current wedge. J Atmos Solar Terr
Phys 66(15):1509–1517
Mayer RE (2005) Principles for reducing extraneous processing in
multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial
contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In: Mayer RE
(ed) Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge
University Press, New York, pp 183–200
McIntire JP, Havig PR, Geiselman EE (2012) What is 3D good for? A
review of human performance on stereoscopic 3D displays. In:
SPIE defense, security, and sensing. International Society for
Optics and Photonics, pp 83830X–83830X
McIntire JP, Havig PR, Geiselman EE (2014) Stereoscopic 3D
displays and human performance: a comprehensive review.
Displays 35(1):18–26
Michael WB, Guilford JP, Fruchter B, Zimmerman WS (1957) The
description of spatial-visualization abilities. Educ Psychol Mea-
sur 17:185–199
Mowafy L, Thurman RA (1993) Training pilots to visualize large-
scale spatial relationships in a stereoscopic display. In: IS&T/
SPIE’s symposium on electronic imaging: science and technol-
ogy. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 72–81
Nataupsky M, Crittenden L (1988) Stereo 3-D and non-stereo
presentations of a computer-generated pictorial primary flight
display with pathway augmentation
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2000) Into the eye of
the storm. Photograph. Retrieved from http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA02636
National Research Council (2006) Learning to think spatially: GIS as
a support system in the K-12 curriculum. The National
Academies Press, Washington
Nemire K (1998) Enhancing cockpit design with an immersive virtual
environment rapid prototyping and simulation system. In:
Aerospace/defense sensing and controls. International Society
for Optics and Photonics, pp 112–123
Newcombe NS (2010) Picture this: increasing math and science
learning by improving spatial thinking. Am Educ 34(2):29
Okuyama F (1999) Evaluation of stereoscopic display with visual
function and interview. In: Electronic Imaging’99. International
Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 28–35
Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PW (2003) Cognitive
load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory.
Educ Psychol 38(1):63–71
Patel M, White M, Walczak K, Sayd P (2003) Digitisation to
presentation: building virtual museum exhibitions. In: Vision,
video and graphics, Bath, England
Patterson R, Silzars A (2009) Immersive stereo displays, intuitive
reasoning, and cognitive engineering. J Soc Inform Display
17(5):443–448
Pepper RL, Smith DC, Cole RE (1981) Stereo TV improves operator
performance under degraded visibility conditions. Opt Eng
20(4):579–585
Pfautz JD (2001) Sampling artifacts in perspective and stereo
displays. In: Photonics west 2001-electronic imaging. Interna-
tional Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 54–62
Piaget J (1956) Child’s conception of space, vol 4. Routledge, London
Pietschmann D, Liebold B, Valtin G, Ohler P (2013) Taking space
literally: reconceptualizing the effects of stereoscopic represen-
tation on user experience. Italian Journal of Game Studies 2(2)
Polonen M, Jarvenpaa T, Bilcu B (2013) Stereoscopic 3D entertain-
ment and its effect on viewing comfort: comparison of children
and adults. Appl Ergon 44(1):151–160
Price A, Lee HS (2010) The effect of two-dimensional and stereoscopic
presentation on middle school students’ performance of spatial
cognition tasks. J Sci Educ Technol 19(1):90–103
Rapp DN, Culpepper SA, Kirkby K, Morin P (2007) Fostering
students’ comprehension of topographic maps. J Geosci Educ
55(1):5
Reinhart WF (1991) Depth cueing for visual search and cursor
positioning. In: Electronic Imaging’91, San Jose, CA. Interna-
tional Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 221–232
Roussou M (2000) Immersive interactive virtual reality and informal
education. In: Stephanidis C (ed) Proceedings of the ERCIM WG
UI4ALL one-day joint workshop with i3 Spring Days 2000 on
‘‘Interactive Learning Environments for Children’’, Athens,
Greece
Shipley TF, Epstein R, Newcombe N (2014) Initiative 1: characterize
spatial skills relevant to STEM and chart their development.
Spatial Intelligence and Learning Center. Resource Document.
http://spatiallearning.org/index.php/initiatives/initiative-1-charac
terize-skills. Accessed 31 March 2014
Sweller J (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on
learning. Cogn Sci 12(2):257–285
Takahashi G, Connolly P (2012) Impact of binocular vision on the
perception of geometric shapes in spatial ability testing. In: 67th
midyear meeting proceedings, Limerick, Ireland
Trindade J, Fiolhais C, Almeida L (2002) Science learning in virtual
environments: a descriptive study. British J Educ Technol
33(4):471–488
Trotter D (2004) Stereoscopy: modernism and the ‘haptic’. Crit Q
46(4):38–58
Van Beurden MHPH, IJsselsteijn WA, Juola JF (2012) Effectiveness
of stereoscopic displays in medicine: a review. 3D Res 3(1):1–13
van den Hoogen W, Feys P, Lamers I, Coninx K, Notelaers S,
Kerkhofs L, IJsselsteijn W (2012) Visualizing the third dimen-
sion in virtual training environments for neurologically impaired
persons: beneficial or disruptive? J Neuroeng Rehabil 9(1):73
Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, a group test of
three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47(2):
599–604
Vendeland J, Regenbrecht H (2013) Is there any use in stereoscopic
slide presentations? http://www.hci.otago.ac.nz/pubs/2013_Ven
delandRegenbrecht_CHINZ_2013_StereoPres_submission.pdf.
Accessed 31 March 2014
Vogt F, Wagner AY (2012) Stereo pairs in astrophysics. Astrophys
Space Sci 337(1):79–92
Wai J, Lubinski D, Benbow CP (2009) Spatial ability for STEM
domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological
knowledge solidifies its importance. J Educ Psychol 101(4):817
J Sci Educ Technol
123
Wheatstone C (1852) XXXVI. Contributions to the physiology of
vision.—Part the first. On the some remarkable, and hitherto
unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Lond Edinb Dublin
Philos Mag J Sci 3(18):241–267
White J (2011) Bumble Bee. Photograph. Retrieved from http://www.
flickr.com/photos/kiwizone/6547976295/
Williams SP, Parrish RV (1990) New computational control tech-
niques and increased understanding for stereo 3-D displays. In:
SC-DL tentative. International Society for Optics and Photonics,
pp 73–82
Wu HK, Shah P (2004) Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry
learning. Sci Educ 88(3):465–492
Yim MYC, Cicchirillo VJ, Drumwright ME (2012) The impact of
stereoscopic three-dimensional (3-D) advertising. J Advert
41(2):113–128
J Sci Educ Technol
123