Training and Individual Difference Effects on the Ability to Visually Discriminate Serially Presented Graphics: Short Term Memory Capacity in Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2004
Training and Individual Difference Effects on the Ability to Visually Discriminate Serially Presented Graphics: Short Term Memory Capacity in Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles
Participants were screened for individual differences in short term memory (STM) capacity (high, low) and cognitive style (analytic, holistic) before beginning a serially-presented visual discrimination task. Participants were trained with either easy or difficult discriminations, then were transferred to novel discriminations. Variables were measured on a continuum, then dichotomized for analysis of variance. Cognitive style did not correlate with STM capacity. The two individual difference measures interacted, however, to affect accuracy performance on the transfer session of the discrimination task. Results suggest that individual differences in cognitive ability and cognitive style are orthogonal constructs that interact to affect skill acquisition and strategy development for visual-spatial tasks. Implications related to discrimination training and computer interface design are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrunerJ. S.GoodnowJ. J.AustinG. A. (1956). A Study of Thinking. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons.
2.
CooperL. A. (1976). Individual differences in visual comparison processes. Perception and Psychophysics, 19(5), 433–444.
3.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466.
4.
DoaneS. M.AldersonDavid L.SohnYoung WooPellegrinoJames W. (1996). Acquisition and transfer of skilled performance: Are visual discrimination skills stimulus specific?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1218–1248.
5.
DoaneS. M.SohnYoung WooSchreiberBrian. (1999). The role of processing strategies in the acquisition and transfer of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(5), 1390–1410.
6.
EmeP. E.MarquerJ. (1998). Quantitative and qualitative individual differences in visual comparison processing: Are strategies only analytic or holistic?Personality and Individual Differences, 25(3), 459–475.
7.
FolkM. D.LuceR. D. (1987). “Effects of stimulus complexity on mental rotation rate of polygons.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13: 395–404.
8.
GillanD. J.HarrisonC. (1999). A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs IV: Holistic and Analytic Perception of Star Graphs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, (pp. 1304–1307). Albuquerque, NM: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
HambrickD. Z.EngleR. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44(4) 339–387.
10.
KramerE. A.HolzworthR. J.PrattJ. H.SohnY. W. (2003). Serial Presentation of Computer Graphics: Training Effects and Strategy Development for Analytic and Holistic Cognitive Styles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting, Denver, CO: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
11.
KramerE. A.PrattJ. H.SohnY. W. (2002). Task Context and Individual Difference Effects on Skill Acquisition of Visual Processing Strategy. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
12.
PrattJ. H. (2002). Development of Cognitive Styles and Strategies in the Visual Discrimination of Computer displayed Graphics: Task Characteristics, Training and Design. Dissertation Abstracts, University of Connecticut.
13.
PrattJ. H.SohnY. W. (2001). Individual Difference Effects on Training and Transfer of Visual Processing Strategy. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN: Human Factors and Ergonomic Society.
14.
RadvanskyG. A.CopelandD. E. (2001). Functionality and spatial relations in memory and language. Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 987–992.
15.
RobertsonIvan T. (1985). Human information-processing strategies and style. Behaviour-and-Information-Technology, 4(1): 19–29.
16.
ShahP.MiyakeA. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.
17.
SuessH. M.SchmudekF. (2000). Fatigue and practice effects during cognitive tasks lasting several hours. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie, 47(3) 162–179.
18.
Uttal (1988). On Seeing Forms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
19.
WitkinH. A. (1950). Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 19, 1–15.
20.
WolfeJ. MCaveK. R.FranzelS. L. (1989). Guided Search: An alternative to the Feature Integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419–433.
