Immersion’s Impact on Performance in a Spatial Reasoning Task

  • Laura FreinaEmail author
  • Rosa Bottino
  • Mauro Tavella
  • Francesca Dagnino
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10056)


The present paper presents the results of a first experiment aimed at assessing if different levels of immersion can affect performance in a Spatial Perspective Taking (SPT) task. Since SPT is an embodied skill, the hypothesis was that the more immersive a tool is, the better the performance should be. Ninety-eight students from a local primary school have played with three different versions of a game: immersive using a Head Mounted Display, semi immersive played on a computer screen and non-immersive in which no movement was possible for the player. Results do not support the initial hypothesis: no significant impact from the immersion level has been found on performance.



The authors wish to thank the Istituto Comprensivo “Sampierdarena” for the participation in the project, the help and support of all the teachers and the school headmistress.


  1. 1.
    OECD: Evolution of Student Interest in Science and Technology Studies – Policy Report; Global Science Forum (2006).
  2. 2.
    Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walwerg-Heriksson, H., Hemmo, V.: Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. European Commission, Brussels (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sinclair, N., Bruce, C.D.: New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM 47(3), 319–329 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newcombe, N.S.: Picture this: increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. Am. Educ. 34(2), 29 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uttal, D.H., Meadow, N.G., Tipton, E., Hand, L.L., Alden, A.R., Warren, C., Newcombe, N.S.: The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychol. Bull. 139(2), 352 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Surtees, A., Apperly, I., Samson, D.: The use of embodied self-rotation for visual and spatial perspective-taking. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7, 698 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newcombe, N.S., Frick, A.: Early education for spatial intelligence: why, what, and how. Mind Brain Educ. 4(3), 102–111 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piaget, J., Inhelder, B.: The Child’s Conception of Space, Trans. F. J. Langdon and J. L. Lunzer. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1956)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newcombe, N.: The development of spatial perspective taking. Adv. Child Dev. Behav. 22, 203–247 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, M.L., Salimpoor, V.N., Wu, S.S., Geary, D.C., Menon, V.: Differential contribution of specific working memory components to mathematics achievement in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learn. Individ. Differ. 20(2), 101–109 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nichols, S., Haldane, C., Wilson, J.R.: Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52(3), 471–491 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalgarno, B., Lee, M.J.: What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 41(1), 10–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rose, F.D., Attree, E.A., Brooks, B.M., Parslow, D.M., Penn, P.R.: Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training. Ergonomics 43(4), 494–511 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freina, L., Canessa, A.: Immersive vs desktop virtual reality in game based learning. In: ECGBL 2015 – 9th European Conference on Games Based Learning: ECGBL 2015, p. 195. Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited, September 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bottino, R.M., Ott, M., Tavella, M.: Scaffolding pedagogical planning and the design of learning activities: an on-line system. Gov. Commun. Innov. Knowl. Intensive Soc. 222 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Inagaki, H., Meguro, K., Shimada, M., Ishizaki, J., Okuzumi, H., Yamadori, A.: Discrepancy between mental rotation and perspective-taking abilities in normal aging assessed by Piaget’s three-mountain task. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 24(1), 18–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tversky, B., Hard, B.M.: Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110(1), 124–129 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frick, A., Möhring, W., Newcombe, N.S.: Picturing perspectives: development of perspective-taking abilities in 4-to 8-year-olds. Front. Psychol. 5, 386 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M., Steed, A.: Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 3(2), 130–144 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epley, N., Morewedge, C.K., Keysar, B.: Perspective taking in children and adults: equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40(6), 760–768 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Freina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rosa Bottino
    • 1
  • Mauro Tavella
    • 1
  • Francesca Dagnino
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research Council – Institute for Educational TechnologiesGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations