Multi-touch and keyboard/mouse devices comparison in an information search task: influence on cognitive load and task engagement

Nowadays multi-touch devices (MTD) can be found in all kind of contexts. In the learning context, MTD availability leads many teachers to use them in their class room, to support the use of the devices by students, or to assume that it will enhance the learning processes. Despite the raising interest for MTD, few researches studying the impact in term of performance or the suitability of the technology for the learning context exist. However, even if the use of touch-sensitive screens rather than a mouse and keyboard seems to be the easiest and fastest way to realize common learning tasks (as for instance web surfing behaviour), we notice that the use of MTD may lead to a less favourable outcome. The complexity to generate an accurate fingers gesture and the split attention it requires (multi-tasking effect) make the use of gestures to interact with a touch-sensitive screen more difficult compared to the traditional laptop use. More precisely, it is hypothesized that efficacy and efficiency decreases, as well as the available cognitive resources making the users’ task engagement more difficult. Furthermore, the presented study takes into account the moderator effect of previous experiences with MTD. Two key factors of technology adoption theories were included in the study: familiarity and self-efficacy with the technology.Sixty university students, invited to a usability lab, are asked to perform information search tasks on an online encyclopaedia. The different tasks were created in order to execute the most commonly used mouse actions (e.g. right click, left click, scrolling, zooming, key words encoding…). Two different conditions were created: (1) MTD use and (2) laptop use (with keyboard and mouse). The cognitive load, self-efficacy, familiarity and task engagement scales were adapted to the MTD context. Furthermore, the eye-tracking measurement would offer additional information about user behaviours and their cognitive load.Our study aims to clarify some important aspects towards the usage of MTD and the added value compared to a laptop in a student learning context. More precisely, the outcomes will enhance the suitability of MTD with the processes at stakes, the role of previous knowledge in the adoption process, as well as some interesting insights into the user experience with such devices.

Commentary on: Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research: On functional and compulsive aspects of reinforcement pathologies

Background: This paper is a commentary to a debate article entitled: "Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research", by Billieux et al. (2015). Methods and aim: This brief response focused on the necessity to better characterize psychological and related neurocognitive determinants of persistent deleterious actions associated or not with substance utilization. Results: A majority of addicted people could be driven by psychological functional reasons to keep using drugs, gambling or buying despite the growing number of related negative consequences. In addition, a non-negligible proportion of them would need assistance to restore profound disturbances in basic learning processes involved in compulsive actions. Conclusions: The distinction between psychological functionality and compulsive aspects of addictive behaviors should represent a big step towards more efficient treatments.

Assessing segmentation processes by click detection: online measure of statistical learning, or simple interference?

Statistical learning can be used to extract the words from continuous speech. Gómez, Bion, and Mehler (Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 212–223, 2011) proposed an online measure of statistical learning: They superimposed auditory clicks on a continuous artificial speech stream made up of a random succession of trisyllabic nonwords. Participants were instructed to detect these clicks, which could be located either within or between words. The results showed that, over the length of exposure, reaction times (RTs) increased more for within-word than for between-word clicks. This result has been accounted for by means of statistical learning of the between-word boundaries. However, even though statistical learning occurs without an intention to learn, it nevertheless requires attentional resources. Therefore, this process could be affected by a concurrent task such as click detection. In the present study, we evaluated the extent to which the click detection task indeed reflects successful statistical learning. Our results suggest that the emergence of RT differences between within- and between-word click detection is neither systematic nor related to the successful segmentation of the artificial language. Therefore, instead of being an online measure of learning, the click detection task seems to interfere with the extraction of statistical regularities.