It is easier to grasp what you can grab.
A Dartmouth research group has found a new and unexpected way our attention can be grabbed -- by Grabbable Objects. Their study, which appears in the March 17 advance online issue of Nature Neuroscience, demonstrates that objects we typically associate with grasping, such as screwdrivers, forks or pens, automatically attract our visual attention, especially if these items are on a person's right-hand side.
"People had already shown that simply viewing graspable objects activates motor areas in the brain," explains Todd C. Handy, the lead author. “Now here's evidence that, to help us do this, grabbable objects can literally grab our attention.” The researchers use both EEG and fMRI in the study.
-----------------------
Here is a finding in basic research that may be important in brain-based communication. That’s a topic for my other blog, after I have thought it through a bit more. Despite the description above, the study actually used images of graspable objects. Thus the finding can reasonably be applied to PowerPoint presentations, web pages, and documents. But the effects are might be stronger with physically graspable objects.
This research itself does not test any practical application, but we can put this evidence together with other information about attention for an inference: Graspable objects, in catching attention, will be more effectively remembered. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.) Further speculation: The object may aid or hinder the presentation depending on whether the presentation incorporates them.
Thus, for example, a screwdriver image would probably catch attention in a PowerPoint presentation. If it were unrelated to the nearby topic, it would probably act as a distraction. If it were logically associated with the nearby topic, it would probably improve recall of that topic. Presumably, the presenter would point out the association. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.)
Would the position in the visual field matter as it did in the experiment? Probably not much. No harm in putting images to the right. We do that in the Thinkerer web pages. But experiments that deal with presentations to the left or right visual field have to get the participant to maintain a fixed gaze on some point in the presentation screen. In real life, people look around too much to suppose that what they see is going to only one side the brain.
Would physical objects be better than images? (Vulcan Fuzzy Word Warning: better is undefined. Vulcan thought requires consideration of the definition.) Would physical objects produce better recall than images? Probably. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.) A presenter might actually pick up and handle the objects to give them emphasis. That might improve a PowerPoint presentation. In the Thinkerer, we suggest that people print Cuepons and Clipits. Perhaps having them in physically grabable form makes them more effective as reminders.
"People had already shown that simply viewing graspable objects activates motor areas in the brain," explains Todd C. Handy, the lead author. “Now here's evidence that, to help us do this, grabbable objects can literally grab our attention.” The researchers use both EEG and fMRI in the study.
-----------------------
Here is a finding in basic research that may be important in brain-based communication. That’s a topic for my other blog, after I have thought it through a bit more. Despite the description above, the study actually used images of graspable objects. Thus the finding can reasonably be applied to PowerPoint presentations, web pages, and documents. But the effects are might be stronger with physically graspable objects.
This research itself does not test any practical application, but we can put this evidence together with other information about attention for an inference: Graspable objects, in catching attention, will be more effectively remembered. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.) Further speculation: The object may aid or hinder the presentation depending on whether the presentation incorporates them.
Thus, for example, a screwdriver image would probably catch attention in a PowerPoint presentation. If it were unrelated to the nearby topic, it would probably act as a distraction. If it were logically associated with the nearby topic, it would probably improve recall of that topic. Presumably, the presenter would point out the association. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.)
Would the position in the visual field matter as it did in the experiment? Probably not much. No harm in putting images to the right. We do that in the Thinkerer web pages. But experiments that deal with presentations to the left or right visual field have to get the participant to maintain a fixed gaze on some point in the presentation screen. In real life, people look around too much to suppose that what they see is going to only one side the brain.
Would physical objects be better than images? (Vulcan Fuzzy Word Warning: better is undefined. Vulcan thought requires consideration of the definition.) Would physical objects produce better recall than images? Probably. (Psychology students note: Testable hypotheses there.) A presenter might actually pick up and handle the objects to give them emphasis. That might improve a PowerPoint presentation. In the Thinkerer, we suggest that people print Cuepons and Clipits. Perhaps having them in physically grabable form makes them more effective as reminders.
posted by Selby Evans at 8:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home