Strategic Differences in Visual Scanning between Field Dependent and Field Independent individuals on the basis of Eye Tracking Measures
International Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 2 (2019),
19 June 2019
Introduction: According to previous findings, visual scanning approaches may play a main role in cognitive styles, which is also important in learning processes. This study aimed at comparing field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI) groups in their visual scanning indicators during performance on a set of stimuli.
Methods: 68 undergraduate students of Shahid Beheshti University participated in this study through purposive sampling method. Participants were assigned into FD and FI groups through the scores of Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). Participants’ eye movements, including fixation details, were tracked by a binocular remote eye-tracking system (SMI-RED120Hz) during their performance on the GEFT.
Results: Mixed MANCOVA analyzing was used in this study. Comparing to FD group, FI group fixated their eyes more on the stimuli in shorter time. Revisits were less in FI group and they had longer fixations. Moreover, there were some significant interactive effects among groups and different areas of GEFT.
Conclusions: It seems that FI individuals use some practical strategies in their visual scanning which enables them to succeed in differentiating components of a whole picture. These strategies are related to time management and taking new perspectives from which, they can probe the stimuli in more effective methods.
Declaration of Interest: None
- cognitive styles
- field dependence/independence (FID)
- visual scanning
- eye tracking.
Yan JH. Cognitive styles affect choice response time and accuracy. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;48(6):747-51.
Rémy L, Gilles P-Y. Relationship between field dependence-independence and the g factor: What can problem-solving strategies tell us? Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology. 2014;64(2):77-82.
Witkin HA, Moore CA, Goodenough DR, Cox PW. Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of educational research. 1977;47(1):1-64.
Nisiforou EA, Laghos A. Do the eyes have it? Using eye tracking to assess students cognitive dimensions. Educational Media International. 2013;50(4):247-65.
Hao X, Wang K, Li W, Yang W, Wei D, Qiu J, et al. Individual differences in brain structure and resting brain function underlie cognitive styles: evidence from the Embedded Figures Test. PloS one. 2013;8(12):e78089.
Peng S, Hu P, Guo Z. Within-culture variation in field dependence/independence: A region-level investigation across China. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal. 2018;46(2):293-300.
Chan JS, Yan JH. Age-Related Changes in Field Dependence–Independence and Implications for Geriatric Rehabilitation: A Review. Perceptual and motor skills. 2018;125(2):234-50.
Kozhevnikov M. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological bulletin. 2007;133(3):464.
Chang S-C, Tang Y-C, Liu Y-J. Beyond objective knowledge: The moderating role of field dependence–independence cognition in financial decision making. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal. 2016;44(3):519-27.
Bolton N. The psychology of thinking: Routledge; 2017.
Zhou J, Zhou C, Li J, Zhang M. Cognitive style modulates conscious but not unconscious thought: Comparing the deliberation-without-attention effect in analytics and wholists. Consciousness and cognition. 2015;36:54-60.
Hamzezade M, Bageriyan F, Mansorisepehr R. The interactive effect of optimism with goal orientation on attention bias. Contemporary Psychology. 2013;7(2):41-50.
Tang R, Song Y. Cognitive styles and eye movement patterns: an empirical investigation into user interactions with interface elements and visualisation objects of a scientific information system. Inf Res. 2018;23(2).
O'Brien HL, Dickinson R, Askin N. A scoping review of individual differences in information seeking behavior and retrieval research between 2000 and 2015. Library & Information Science Research. 2017;39(3):244-54.
Nisiforou E, Laghos A. Field Dependence–Independence and Eye Movement Patterns: Investigating Users’ Differences Through an Eye Tracking Study. Interacting with Computers. 2016;28(4):407-20.
Mumma GH. The Embedded Figures Test: Internal structure and development of a short form. Personality and individual differences. 1993;15(2):221-4.
Van der Hallen R, Chamberlain R, Huygelier H, de-Wit L, Wagemans J. The Leuven Embedded Figures Test (L-EFT): re-embedding the EFT into vision sciences. 2015.
kordnoghabi R. The Relationship between FDI Cognitive Style and Students Parenting Styles: Allameh Tabatabayi; 1999.
Agathos CP, Bernardin D, Huchet D, Scherlen A-C, Assaiante C, Isableu B. Sensorimotor and cognitive factors associated with the age-related increase of visual field dependence: a cross-sectional study. Age. 2015;37(4):67.
Van Eck RN, Fu H, Drechsel PV. Can simulator immersion change cognitive style? Results from a cross-sectional study of field-dependence–independence in air traffic control students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2015;27(3):196-214.
Mawad F, Trías M, Giménez A, Maiche A, Ares G. Influence of cognitive style on information processing and selection of yogurt labels: Insights from an eye-tracking study. Food Research International. 2015;74:1-9.
Raptis GE, Fidas CA, Avouris NM, editors. Differences of Field Dependent/Independent Gamers on Cultural Heritage Playing: Preliminary Findings of an Eye–Tracking Study. Euro-Mediterranean Conference; 2016: Springer.
Almeida RA, Dickinson JE, Maybery MT, Badcock JC, Badcock DR. A new step towards understanding Embedded Figures Test performance in the autism spectrum: The radial frequency search task. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(2):374-81.
Salimi A, Huseynpur B. Revisiting the conceptual ambiguity of learning styles. International Journal of Educational Investigations. 2015;2(8):10-24.
Dodson S. Effects of field dependence-independence and passive highlights on comprehension: University of British Columbia; 2016.
Omar E. Perceptions of teaching methods for preclinical oral surgery: A comparison with learning styles. Open Dent J. 2017;11:109-119.
Dodson S. Effects of field dependence-independence and passive highlights on comprehension: University of British Columbia. 2016.
Budayasa IK & Lukito A. Metacognitive activity of male students: difference field independent-dependent cognitive style. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, IOP Publishing. 2019.
Safi H. "Description of Critical Thinking in Solving Linear I Algebra Problem Based on Iintial Ability and Cognitive Style of Undergraduate Students of Mathematic Education Study Program." Education, Mathematics, JDM. 2019; 7(1): 69-82.
Marwazi M & et al. "Analysis of Problem Solving Ability Based on Field Dependent Cognitive Style in Discovery Learning Models." Journal of Primary Education: 2019; 127-134.
Marifatun M & et al. "The Effectiveness of the Problem Based Learning Model Assisted by Interactive CD on Mathematical Problem Solving Ability Reviewed from Students' Cognitive Style." Innovative Journal of Curriculum and Educational Technology. 2019; 7(2): 78-85..
- Abstract Viewed: 74 times
- PDF Downloaded: 19 times