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: Aaron.price@alumni.tufts.edu

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