@2024 Afarand., IRAN
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):167-173
ISSN: 2228-5468 Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2014;7(3):167-173
Effective Factors on Education Policies and Academic Technology
ARTICLE INFO
Article Type
Original ResearchAuthors
Nejati V. (* )Shahidi Sh. (1 )
Barzegar B. (1 )
(* ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
(1 ) Psychology Department, Educational Sciences & Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Correspondence
Article History
Received: July 10, 2013Accepted: September 23, 2013
ePublished: July 7, 2014
ABSTRACT
Aims
Different aspect of visual information project to visual system via different frequencies.
The image details project by means of high frequency and the generalities project via low
frequency. The purpose of present study was to investigate the difference between attention
to the filtered and non-filtered images of information in the elementary and junior high school
students.
Materials & Methods This cross-sectional comparative study was done on 2 regions of Tehran elementary and guidance school students in 2012.Subjects were selected using non probably sampling method and 132 students from 3 elementary and guidance schools were participated in the study totally.Data were collected using the modified visual dot-probe test. Data were entered to SPSS and due to have one group and three different frequency filters, repeated measurements statistical evaluation was used.
Findings The right answers mean in consistent display mode at low frequency was (18.96±2.10) and at the inconsistent mode without the filter was (14.04±1.81).Subjects’ mean reaction time was more in the consistent display at high frequency (0.65±0.36) and in the inconsistent mode without the filter (0.59±0.33). There was a significant difference between subjects’ right answers and reaction time to different presented stimuli in respect to the consistent or inconsistent display.
Conclusion Low frequency filtered images are processed more accurate and rapid compared to the high frequency filter images and without filter is in normal children and adolescence and the tendency to use the low frequency filter is more than are high frequency.
Materials & Methods This cross-sectional comparative study was done on 2 regions of Tehran elementary and guidance school students in 2012.Subjects were selected using non probably sampling method and 132 students from 3 elementary and guidance schools were participated in the study totally.Data were collected using the modified visual dot-probe test. Data were entered to SPSS and due to have one group and three different frequency filters, repeated measurements statistical evaluation was used.
Findings The right answers mean in consistent display mode at low frequency was (18.96±2.10) and at the inconsistent mode without the filter was (14.04±1.81).Subjects’ mean reaction time was more in the consistent display at high frequency (0.65±0.36) and in the inconsistent mode without the filter (0.59±0.33). There was a significant difference between subjects’ right answers and reaction time to different presented stimuli in respect to the consistent or inconsistent display.
Conclusion Low frequency filtered images are processed more accurate and rapid compared to the high frequency filter images and without filter is in normal children and adolescence and the tendency to use the low frequency filter is more than are high frequency.
CITATION LINKS
[1]Johari A, Chen CJ, Toh SC. A feasible constructivist instructional development model for virtual reality (VR)-based learning environments: Its efficacy in the novice car driver instruction of Malaysia. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2005;53(1):111-23.
[2]Saleeb N, Dafoulas G. Effects of virtual world environments in student satisfaction: An examination of the role of architecture in 3D education. Int J Knowledge Soc Res. 2011;2(1):29-48.
[3]Jou M, Wang J. Investigation of effects of virtual reality environments on learning performance of technical skills. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29(2):433-8.
[4]Wood E, Zivcakova L, Gentile P, Archer K, De Pasquale D, Nosko A. Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Comput Educ. 2012;58(1):365-374.
[5]Lee DY, Shin DH. An empirical evaluation of multi-media based learning of a procedural task. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28(3):1072-81.
[6]Yli-Krekola A, Särelä J, Valpola H. Selective attention improves learning. In: Alippi C, Polycarpou M, Panayiotou C, Ellinas G. Artificial Neural Networks-ICANN 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009. Pp. 285-94.
[7]Seidman LJ. Neuropsychological functioning in people with ADHD across the life span. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(4):466-85.
[8]Leung K, Lee T, Yip P, Li LS, Wong MM. Selective attention biases of people with depression: Positive and negative priming of depression-related information. Psychiatry Res. 2009;165(3):241-51.
[9]Flevaris AV, Robertson LC, Bentin S. Using spatial frequency scales for processing face features and face configuration: An ERP analysis. Brain Res. 2008;1194:100-9.
[10]Leat SJ, Yadav NK, Irving EL. Development of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in children. J Optometry. 2009;2(1):19-26.
[11]Maurer D, Grand RL, Mondloch CJ. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(6):255-60.
[12]Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O'Brien CP.. Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67(2):185-91.
[13]Deruelle C, Rondan C, Gepner B, Tardif C. Spatial frequency and face processing in children with autism and Asperger syndrome. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(2):199-210.
[14]Goffaux V, Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. J Exp Ment Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2006;33(4):995-1002.
[15]Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica. 2008;128(2):274-89.
[16]Rossion B. Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica. 2009;132(3):300-12.
[17]Leonard HC, Karmiloff-Smith A, Johnson MH. The development of spatial frequency biases in face recognition. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010;106(4):193-207.
[18]Awasthi B, Friedman J, Williams M. Faster, stronger, lateralized: Low spatial frequency information supports face Processing. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(13):3583-90.
[19]de Heering A, Turati C, Rossion B, Bulf H, Goffaux V, Simion F. Newborns’ face recognition is based on spatial frequencies below 0.5 cycles per degree. Cognition. 2008;106(1):444-54.
[20]Adams RJ, Courage ML. Using a single test to measure human contrast sensitivity from early childhood to maturity. Vision Res. 2002;42(9):1205-10.
[21]Deruelle C, Rondan C, Salle-Collemiche X, Bastard-Rosset D, Da Fonséca D. Attention to low-and high-spatial frequencies in categorizing facial identities, emotions and gender in children with autism. Brain Cogn. 2008;66(2):115-23.
[22]Deruelle C, Fagot J. Categorizing facial identities, emotions, and genders: Attention to high- and low-spatial frequencies by children and adults. J Exp Child Psychol. 2005;90(2):172-84.
[23]Neta M, Whalen P. The primacy of negative interpretations when resolving the valence of ambiguous facial expressions. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(7):901-7.
[24]Goffaux V, Hault B, Michel C, Vuong QC, Rossion B. The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Perception. 2005;34(1):77-86.
[25]Gazzaniga MS, Lvry RB, Mangun GR. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2013.
[2]Saleeb N, Dafoulas G. Effects of virtual world environments in student satisfaction: An examination of the role of architecture in 3D education. Int J Knowledge Soc Res. 2011;2(1):29-48.
[3]Jou M, Wang J. Investigation of effects of virtual reality environments on learning performance of technical skills. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29(2):433-8.
[4]Wood E, Zivcakova L, Gentile P, Archer K, De Pasquale D, Nosko A. Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Comput Educ. 2012;58(1):365-374.
[5]Lee DY, Shin DH. An empirical evaluation of multi-media based learning of a procedural task. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28(3):1072-81.
[6]Yli-Krekola A, Särelä J, Valpola H. Selective attention improves learning. In: Alippi C, Polycarpou M, Panayiotou C, Ellinas G. Artificial Neural Networks-ICANN 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009. Pp. 285-94.
[7]Seidman LJ. Neuropsychological functioning in people with ADHD across the life span. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(4):466-85.
[8]Leung K, Lee T, Yip P, Li LS, Wong MM. Selective attention biases of people with depression: Positive and negative priming of depression-related information. Psychiatry Res. 2009;165(3):241-51.
[9]Flevaris AV, Robertson LC, Bentin S. Using spatial frequency scales for processing face features and face configuration: An ERP analysis. Brain Res. 2008;1194:100-9.
[10]Leat SJ, Yadav NK, Irving EL. Development of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in children. J Optometry. 2009;2(1):19-26.
[11]Maurer D, Grand RL, Mondloch CJ. The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6(6):255-60.
[12]Ehrman RN, Robbins SJ, Bromwell MA, Lankford ME, Monterosso JR, O'Brien CP.. Comparing attentional bias to smoking cues in current smokers, former smokers, and non-smokers using a dot-probe task. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;67(2):185-91.
[13]Deruelle C, Rondan C, Gepner B, Tardif C. Spatial frequency and face processing in children with autism and Asperger syndrome. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(2):199-210.
[14]Goffaux V, Rossion B. Face inversion disproportionately impairs the perception of vertical but not horizontal relations between features. J Exp Ment Psychol Human Percept Perform. 2006;33(4):995-1002.
[15]Rossion B. Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychologica. 2008;128(2):274-89.
[16]Rossion B. Distinguishing the cause and consequence of face inversion: The perceptual field hypothesis. Acta Psychologica. 2009;132(3):300-12.
[17]Leonard HC, Karmiloff-Smith A, Johnson MH. The development of spatial frequency biases in face recognition. J Exp Child Psychol. 2010;106(4):193-207.
[18]Awasthi B, Friedman J, Williams M. Faster, stronger, lateralized: Low spatial frequency information supports face Processing. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(13):3583-90.
[19]de Heering A, Turati C, Rossion B, Bulf H, Goffaux V, Simion F. Newborns’ face recognition is based on spatial frequencies below 0.5 cycles per degree. Cognition. 2008;106(1):444-54.
[20]Adams RJ, Courage ML. Using a single test to measure human contrast sensitivity from early childhood to maturity. Vision Res. 2002;42(9):1205-10.
[21]Deruelle C, Rondan C, Salle-Collemiche X, Bastard-Rosset D, Da Fonséca D. Attention to low-and high-spatial frequencies in categorizing facial identities, emotions and gender in children with autism. Brain Cogn. 2008;66(2):115-23.
[22]Deruelle C, Fagot J. Categorizing facial identities, emotions, and genders: Attention to high- and low-spatial frequencies by children and adults. J Exp Child Psychol. 2005;90(2):172-84.
[23]Neta M, Whalen P. The primacy of negative interpretations when resolving the valence of ambiguous facial expressions. Psychol Sci. 2010;21(7):901-7.
[24]Goffaux V, Hault B, Michel C, Vuong QC, Rossion B. The respective role of low and high spatial frequencies in supporting configural and featural processing of faces. Perception. 2005;34(1):77-86.
[25]Gazzaniga MS, Lvry RB, Mangun GR. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2013.