Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ariana Mann

dblp:122/4823 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 77% User interface design and tools · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input
pen input
0.112012
The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2012
User interface design and tools › interaction design
interface affordances
0.012012
The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2012

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

linear regression · 0.1controlled study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning
abstract
This article presents two studies investigating how computer interface affordances influence basic cognition, including ideational fluency, problem solving, and inferential reasoning. In one study comparing interfaces with different input capabilities, students expressed 56% more nonlinguistic representations (diagrams, symbols, numbers) when using pen interfaces. A linear regression confirmed that nonlinguistic communication directly mediated a substantial increase (38.5%) in students' ability to produce appropriate science ideas. In contrast, students expressed 41% more linguistic content when using a keyboard-based interface, which mediated a drop in science ideation. A follow-up study pursued the question of how interfaces that prime nonlinguistic communication so effectively facilitate cognition. This study examined the relation between students' expression of nonlinguistic representations and their inference accuracy when using analogous digital and non-digital pen tools. Perhaps surprisingly, the digital pen interface stimulated construction of more diagrams, more correct Venn diagrams, and more accurate domain inferences. Students' construction of multiple diagrams to represent a problem also directly suppressed overgeneralization errors, which were the most common inference failure. These research results reveal that computer interfaces have communications affordances which elicit communication patterns that can substantially stimulate or impede basic cognition. Implications are discussed for designing new digital tools for thinking, with an emphasis on nonlinguistic and especially spatial representations that are most poorly supported by current keyboard-based interfaces.
Sharon L. Oviatt, Adrienne Cohen, Andrea Miller, Kumi Hodge, Ariana Mann
ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact.5
2011 Designing Interfaces that Stimulate Ideational Fluency in Science
Sharon L. Oviatt, Adrienne Cohen, Ariana Mann
CogSci3