Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Shared Boundary Interfaces: can one fit all? A controlled study on virtual reality vs touch-screen interfaces on persons with Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.15970 v1 pith:OGRYAMIA submitted 2024-04-24 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords learningdisorderseducationinterfacetablettouchscreenconditioncontrolled
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Technology presents a significant educational opportunity, particularly in enhancing emotional engagement and expanding learning and educational prospects for individuals with Neurodevelopmental Disorders (NDD). Virtual reality emerges as a promising tool for addressing such disorders, complemented by numerous touchscreen applications that have shown efficacy in fostering education and learning abilities. VR and touchscreen technologies represent diverse interface modalities. This study primarily investigates which interface, VR or touchscreen, more effectively facilitates food education for individuals with NDD. We compared learning outcomes via pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. To this end, we developed GEA, a dual-interface, user-friendly web application for Food Education, adaptable for either immersive use in a head-mounted display (HMD) or non-immersive use on a tablet. A controlled study was conducted to determine which interface better promotes learning. Over three sessions, the experimental group engaged with all GEA games in VR (condition A), while the control group interacted with the same games on a tablet (condition B). Results indicated a significant increase in post-questionnaire scores across subjects, averaging a 46% improvement. This enhancement was notably consistent between groups, with VR and Tablet groups showing 42% and 41% improvements, respectively.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools