Abstract
The Sandia National Laboratories Human Factors team designed and executed an experiment to quantify the differences between 2D and 3D reference materials with respect to task performance and cognitive workload. A between-subjects design was used where 27 participants were randomly assigned either 2D or 3D reference material condition (14 and 13 participants, respectively). The experimental tasks required participants to interpret, locate, and report dimensions on their assigned reference material. Performance was measured by accuracy of task completion and time-to-complete. After all experimental tasks were completed, cognitive workload data were collected. Response times were longer in the 3D condition vice the 2D. However, no differences were found between conditions with respect to response accuracy and cognitive workload, which may indicate no negative cognitive impacts concerning the sole use of 3D reference materials in the work-place. This paper concludes with possible future efforts to address the limitations of this experiment and to explore the mechanisms behind the findings of this work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Quintana, V., et al.: Will model-based definition replace engineering drawings throughout the product lifecycle? A global perspective from aerospace industry. Comput. Ind. 61(5), 497–508 (2010)
Hudspeth, M.: Transitioning from 2D to 3D: the benefits of switching to 3D far outweigh what 2D offers. Cadalyst 23(9), 39–41 (2006)
Lamit, L.: Moving from 2D to 3D CAD for Engineering Design: Challenges and Opportunities, p. 5. BookSurge Publishing, Charleston (2007)
Vandenberg, S.G., Kuse, A.R.: Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept. Mot. Skills 47(2), 599–604 (1978). https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
Caissie, A.F., Vigneau, F., Bors, D.A.: What does the mental rotation test measure? An analysis of item difficulty and item characteristics. Open Psychol. J. 2(1), 94–102 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874350100902010094
Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload. North Holland Press, Amsterdam (1988)
Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)
Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (E-Prime 3.0) (2016). http://www.pstnet.com
Acknowledgments
We thank the MAP-R project and members for providing the funding and impetus for this effort; Chris Forsythe for his expertise and input on measuring spatial skills; Aaron Jones and Paul Schutte for their review of our pilot experiment runs and experimental materials; Danielle Sanchez and Paul Schutte for help in facilitating the experiment runs; and Megan Greenwald-Yarnell for her peer review of the final document.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Heiden, S.M., Moyer, E.M. (2020). Human Performance Differences Between Drawing-Based and Model-Based Reference Materials. In: Di Nicolantonio, M., Rossi, E., Alexander, T. (eds) Advances in Additive Manufacturing, Modeling Systems and 3D Prototyping. AHFE 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 975. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20216-3_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20216-3_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20215-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20216-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)