Paul Marshall

Bio: Paul Marshall is an academic researcher from University of Bristol. The author has contributed to research in topics: Situated & Empirical research. The author has an hindex of 38, co-authored 123 publications receiving 4685 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Marshall include Open University & University College London.

Do tangible interfaces enhance learning

Abstract: Conceptual work on tangible interfaces has focused primarily on the production of descriptive frameworks. While this work has been successful in mapping out a space of technical possibilities and providing a terminology to ground discussion, it provides little guidance on the cognitive or social effects of using one type of interface or another. In this paper we look at the area of learning with tangible interfaces, suggesting that more empirically grounded research is needed to guide development. We provide an analytic framework of six perspectives, which describes latent trends and assumptions that might be used to motivate and guide this work, and makes links with existing research in cognitive science and education.

Introduction to the special issue on the theory and practice of embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design

Abstract: Theories of embodiment focus on how practical engagement and the structure of the body shape perception, experience, and cognition. They typically reject a view of human cognition as grounded in abstract information processing. The concept of embodied interaction is increasingly used in the design, analysis, and evaluation of interactions with and around technology. However, many questions remain as to exactly what embodied interaction means and whether it can be considered a coherent program of research. The aim of this special issue is to critically explore different perspectives on embodied interaction in HCI and interaction design research and practice and to focus on what theoretical traction they can provide.

Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input

Abstract: Multi-touch surfaces are becoming increasingly popular. An assumed benefit is that they can facilitate collaborative interactions in co-located groups. In particular, being able to see another's physical actions can enhance awareness, which in turn can support fluid interaction and coordination. However, there is a paucity of empirical evidence or measures to support these claims. We present an analysis of different aspects of awareness in an empirical study that compared two kinds of input: multi-touch and multiple mice. For our analysis, a set of awareness indices was derived from the CSCW and HCI literatures, which measures both the presence and absence of awareness in co-located settings. Our findings indicate higher levels of awareness for the multi-touch condition accompanied by significantly more actions that interfere with each other. A subsequent qualitative analysis shows that the interactions in this condition were more fluid and that interference was quickly resolved. We suggest that it is more important that resources are available to negotiate interference rather than necessarily to attempt to prevent it.

Rethinking 'multi-user': an in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface

Abstract: Multi-touch tabletops have been much heralded as an innovative technology that can facilitate new ways of group working. However, there is little evidence of these materialising outside of research lab settings. We present the findings of a 5-week in-the-wild study examining how a shared planning application - designed to run on a walk-up-and-use tabletop - was used when placed in a tourist information centre. We describe how groups approached, congregated and interacted with it and the social interactions that took place - noting how they were quite different from research findings describing the ways groups work around a tabletop in lab settings. We discuss the implications of such situated group work for designing collaborative tabletop applications for use in public settings.

Around the table: are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children's collaborative interactions?

Abstract: This paper presents a classroom study that investigated the potential of using touch tabletop technology to support children's collaborative learning interactions. Children aged 7-10 worked in groups of three on a collaborative planning task in which they designed a seating plan for their classroom. In the single-touch condition, the tabletop surface allowed only one child to interact with the digital content at a time. In the multiple-touch condition, the children could interact with the digital content simultaneously. Results showed that touch condition did not affect the frequency or equity of interactions, but did influence the nature of children's discussion. In the multiple-touch condition, children talked more about the task; in the single-touch condition, they talked more about turn taking. We also report age and gender differences.

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches

Abstract: หนงสอเรอง การออกแบบการวจย: วธการวจยเชงคณภาพ วธการวจยเชงปรมาณ และวธการวจยแบบผสม (Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches) เปนหนงสอทเรยบเรยงเพออธบายเกยวกบความแตกตางของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบ ไดแก การวจย เชงปรมาณ และการวจยเชงคณภาพ และความจำเปนของประเดนปญหาการวจยทตองนำกระบวนทศนทง 2 มารวมกนหาขอคนพบเพอนำไปสผลการวจยทสามารถนำผลการวจยไปใชประโยชนไดอยางจรงมากยงขน เรยกวา “การวจยแบบผสมผสาน” ซงเปนหนงสอทอธบายวธการวจยทง 2 ประเภทไดอยางชดเจน และการรวมกนของกระบวนทศนการวจยทง 2 แบบอยางลงตว

A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness-Authors' Response-Acting out our sensory experience

Abstract: Many current neurophysiological, psychophysical, and psychological approaches to vision rest on the idea that when we see, the brain produces an internal representation of the world. The activation of this internal representation is assumed to give rise to the experience of seeing. The problem with this kind of approach is that it leaves unexplained how the existence of such a detailed internal representation might produce visual consciousness. An alternative proposal is made here. We propose that seeing is a way of acting. It is a particular way of exploring the environment. Activity in internal representations does not generate the experience of seeing. The outside world serves as its own, external, representation. The experience of seeing occurs when the organism masters what we call the governing laws of sensorimotor contingency. The advantage of this approach is that it provides a natural and principled way of accounting for visual consciousness, and for the differences in the perceived quality of sensory experience in the different sensory modalities. Several lines of empirical evidence are brought forward in support of the theory, in particular: evidence from experiments in sensorimotor adaptation, visual \"filling in,\" visual stability despite eye movements, change blindness, sensory substitution, and color perception.

Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers

Abstract: Consumer-wearable activity trackers are electronic devices used for monitoring fitness- and other health-related metrics. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence for validity and reliability of popular consumer-wearable activity trackers (Fitbit and Jawbone) and their ability to estimate steps, distance, physical activity, energy expenditure, and sleep. Searches included only full-length English language studies published in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar through July 31, 2015. Two people reviewed and abstracted each included study. In total, 22 studies were included in the review (20 on adults, 2 on youth). For laboratory-based studies using step counting or accelerometer steps, the correlation with tracker-assessed steps was high for both Fitbit and Jawbone (Pearson or intraclass correlation coefficients (CC) > =0.80). Only one study assessed distance for the Fitbit, finding an over-estimate at slower speeds and under-estimate at faster speeds. Two field-based studies compared accelerometry-assessed physical activity to the trackers, with one study finding higher correlation (Spearman CC 0.86, Fitbit) while another study found a wide range in correlation (intraclass CC 0.36–0.70, Fitbit and Jawbone). Using several different comparison measures (indirect and direct calorimetry, accelerometry, self-report), energy expenditure was more often under-estimated by either tracker. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency were over-estimated and wake after sleep onset was under-estimated comparing metrics from polysomnography to either tracker using a normal mode setting. No studies of intradevice reliability were found. Interdevice reliability was reported on seven studies using the Fitbit, but none for the Jawbone. Walking- and running-based Fitbit trials indicated consistently high interdevice reliability for steps (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.76–1.00), distance (intraclass CC 0.90–0.99), and energy expenditure (Pearson and intraclass CC 0.71–0.97). When wearing two Fitbits while sleeping, consistency between the devices was high. This systematic review indicated higher validity of steps, few studies on distance and physical activity, and lower validity for energy expenditure and sleep. The evidence reviewed indicated high interdevice reliability for steps, distance, energy expenditure, and sleep for certain Fitbit models. As new activity trackers and features are introduced to the market, documentation of the measurement properties can guide their use in research settings.