The Effects of Animation on the Guessability of Universal Healthcare Symbols for Middle-Aged and Older Adults

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether animation can help to improve the comprehension of universal healthcare symbols for middle-aged and older adults.

Background

The Hablamos Juntos (HJ) healthcare symbol system is a set of widely used universal healthcare symbols that were developed in the United States. Some studies indicated that HJ healthcare symbols are not well-understood by users in non-English-speaking areas. Other studies found that animations can improve users’ comprehension of complex symbols. Thus, we wanted to test whether animation could help to improve users’ comprehension of HJ symbols.

Methods

The participants included 40 middle-aged and 40 older adults in Taiwan. We redesigned the 12 HJ symbols into three visual formats—static, basic animation, and detailed animation—and compared them to find which best improved the participants’ guessability scores.

Results

(1) Middle-aged adults’ comprehension of static and basic animated symbols was significantly better than that of older adults, but there was no significant difference in the guessability scores between the two age groups in terms of detailed animated symbols; (2) In general, both basic animation and detailed animation significantly improved the guessability score, but the effect with detailed animation was significantly greater than that with basic animation; (3) Older women were more receptive to detailed animation and showed better guessing performance.

Conclusion

Detailed animation contains more details and provides a more complete explanation of the concept of the static symbols, helping to improve the comprehension of HJ symbols for middle-aged and older adult users.

Application

Our findings provide a reference for the possibility of new style symbol design in the digital and aging era, which can be applied to improve symbol comprehension.

Keywords

Animated symbols universal healthcare symbols comprehension guessability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al-Madani

Al-Janahi

A. R.

(2002). Role of drivers’ personal characteristics in understanding traffic sign symbols. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(01)00012-4

ANSI . (2007). American National standard for safe use of lasers. In American National Standards Institute Z136.1. Washington, DC: National Electrical Manufacturers.

Ayres

Marcus

Chan

Qian

N. X.

(2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013

Ben-Bassat

Shinar

(2006). Ergonomic guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Human Factors, 48(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006776412298

Betrancourt

Tversky

(2000). Effect of computer animation on users’ performance: A review. Travail Humain, 63(4), 311–329.

Blees

G. J.

Mak

W. M.

(2012). Comprehension of disaster pictorials across cultures. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(7), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.715798

Brockmole

J. R.

Logie

R. H.

(2013). Age-related change in visual working memory: A study of 55,753 participants aged 8–75. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00012

Brucker

Scheiter

Gerjets

(2014). Learning with dynamic and static visualizations: Realistic details only benefit learners with high visuospatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.077

Caffaro

Cavallo

(2015). Comprehension of safety pictograms affixed to agricultural machinery: A survey of users. Journal of Safety Research, 55, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.008

10.

Cargin

Maruff

Collie

Shafiq-Antonacci

Masters

(2007). Decline in verbal memory in non-demented older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(7), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580600954256

11.

Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Ayres

Paas

(2016). Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations. Computers & Education, 102, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.004

12.

Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Wong

Adesope

O. O.

Ayres

Paas

(2019). Gender imbalance in instructional dynamic versus static visualizations: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1

13.

Catrambone

Seay

A. F.

(2002). Using animation to help students learn computer algorithms. Human Factors, 44(3), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497637

14.

Chan

K. L.

Chan

A. H. S.

(2011). Understanding industrial safety signs: Implications for occupational safety management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(8–9), 1481–1510. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111182809

15.

Chan

A. H. S.

Chan

K. W. L.

(2013). Effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features on guessability of pharmaceutical pictograms. Patient Education and Counseling, 90(2), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.10.009

16.

Chan

A. H. S.

A. W. Y.

(2010a). Effects of sign characteristics and training methods on safety sign training effectiveness. Ergonomics, 53(11), 1325–1346, Article Pii 928460385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.524251

17.

Chan

A. H. S.

A. W. Y.

(2010b). Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs: Effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(6), 689–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2010.05.002

18.

Chan

A. H. S.

A. W. Y.

(2012). The guessing of mine safety signs meaning: Effects of user factors and cognitive sign features. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 18(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2012.11076928

19.

Denzin

Lincoln

(1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Sage.

20.

Falvo

D. A.

Suits

J. P.

(2009). Gender and spatial ability and the use of specific labels and diagrammatic arrows in a micro-level chemistry animation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.41.1.d

21.

Fujisawa

Inoue

Yamana

Hayashi

(2011). The effect of animation on learning action symbols by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2011.553245

22.

Groff

Boucheix

J. M.

Lowe

R. K.

Argon

Saby

Alauzet

Paire-Ficout

(2014). Don’t miss your train! Just follow the computer screen animation: Comprehension processes of animated public information graphics. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.010

23.

Gunstad

Paul

R. H.

Brickman

A. M.

Cohen

R. A.

Arns

Roe

Lawrence

J. J.

Gordon

(2006). Patterns of cognitive performance in middle-aged and older adults: A cluster analytic examination. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 19(2), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988705284738

24.

Hancock

H. E.

Rogers

W. A.

Schroeder

Fisk

A. D.

(2004). Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age. Human Factors, 46(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.2.183.37344

25.

Hashim

M. J.

Alkaabi

Bharwani

(2014). Interpretation of way-finding healthcare symbols by a multicultural population: Navigation signage design for global health. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 503–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.07.002

26.

van Leeuwen

(2020). Animation and the remediation of school physics–a social semiotic approach. Social Semiotics, 30(5), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2019.1568957

27.

Hoffler

T. N.

(2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations-a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7

28.

Hoffler

T. N.

Leutner

(2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013

29.

Scialfa

C. T.

Caird

J. K.

Graw

(2001). Visual search for traffic signs: The effects of clutter, luminance, and aging. Human Factors, 43(2), 194–207. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775900922

30.

Isherwood

S. J.

McDougall

S. J. R.

Curry

M. B.

(2007). Icon identification in context: The changing role of icon characteristics with user experience. Human Factors, 49(3), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007x200102

31.

ISO . (2001). Graphical symbols-test methods for judged comprehensibility and for comprehension. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization 9186.

32.

Jiang

Zhang

S. Y.

(2018). Cognition, emotion and brain mechanism: Neural mechanism of animation cognition based on gender difference. Neuroquantology, 16(5), 454–460. https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2018.16.5.1348

33.

Jordan

P. W.

Draper

S. W.

MacFarlane

K. K.

McNulty

S.-A.

(1991). Guessability, learnability, and experienced user performance. In Diaper

Hammond

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers VI, August 20-23, 1991. Edinburgh, UK: Heriot-Watt University, (pp. 237–245).

34.

Kitagami

(2004). The research about the semantic transparency of 100 animated visual symbols. Japan Journal of Educational Technology, 28(Suppl), 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0164)

35.

Kline

D. W.

Buck

Sell

Bolan

T. L.

Dewar

R. E.

(1999). Older observers’ tolerance of optical blur: Age differences in the identification of defocused text signs. Human Factors, 41(3), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872099779611049

36.

Koning

B. B.

Marcus

Brucker

Ayres

(2019). Does observing hand actions in animations and static graphics differentially affect learning of hand-manipulative tasks? Computers & Education, 141, 103636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103636

37.

Korpi

Ahonen-Rainio

(2010). Cultural constraints in the design of pictographic symbols. Cartographic Journal, 47(4), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1179/000870410x12911337964923

38.

Kuhl

Navratil

S. D.

Munzer

(2018). Animations and static pictures: The influence of prompting and time of testing. Learning and Instruction, 58, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.006

39.

Kuhl

Scheiter

Gerjets

Gemballa

(2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 56(1), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008

40.

Kumar

Priyadarshi

(2013). Differential effect of aging on verbal and visuo-spatial working memory. Aging and Disease, 4(4), 170.

41.

Lajevardi

Narang

N. S.

Marcus

Ayres

(2017). Can mimicking gestures facilitate learning from instructional animations and static graphics? Computers & Education, 110, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.010

42.

Lee

Dazkir

S. S.

Paik

H. S.

Coskun

(2014). Comprehensibility of universal healthcare symbols for wayfinding in healthcare facilities. Applied Ergonomics, 45(4), 878–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.11.003

43.

Lesch

M. F.

Horrey

W. J.

Wogalter

M. S.

Powell

W. R.

(2011). Age-related differences in warning symbol comprehension and training effectiveness: Effects of familiarity, complexity, and comprehensibility. Ergonomics, 54(10), 879–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2011.606924

44.

Lesch

M. F.

Powell

W. R.

Horrey

W. J.

Wogalter

M. S.

(2013). The use of contextual cues to improve warning symbol comprehension: making the connection for older adults. Ergonomics, 56(8), 1264–1279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.802019

45.

Liu

Y. C.

C. H.

(2012). The effects of age on symbol comprehension in central rail hubs in Taiwan. Applied Ergonomics, 43(6), 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.02.004

46.

Liu

Wen

H. Y.

Zhu

D. C.

Kumfer

(2019). Investigation of the contributory factors to the guessability of traffic signs. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), Article 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010162

47.

C. W. J.

Yien

H. W.

Chen

I. P.

(2016). How universal are universal symbols? An estimation of cross-cultural adoption of universal healthcare symbols. Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(3), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715616360

48.

G. Y.

Hou

G. H.

(2020). Effects of semantic congruence on sign identification: An ERP study. Human Factors, 62(5), 800–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819854880

49.

Mayer

R. E.

(2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760

50.

McDougall

S. J. P.

de Bruijn

Curry

M. B.

(2000). Exploring the effects of icon characteristics on user performance: The role of icon concreteness, complexity, and distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 6(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.6.4.291

51.

McPhee

L. C.

Scialfa

C. T.

Dennis

W. M.

Caird

J. K.

(2004). Age differences in visual search for traffic signs during a simulated conversation. Human Factors, 46(4), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.4.674.56817

52.

Moreno

Morales

L. S.

(2010). Hablamos Juntos (together we speak): interpreters, provider communication, and satisfaction with care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(12), 1282–1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1467-x

53.

Morrell

R. W.

Park

D. C.

Poon

L. W.

(1990). Effects of labeling techniques on memory and comprehension of prescription information in young and old adults. Journal of Gerontology, 45(4), P166–P172. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/45.4.p166

54.

Mykityshyn

A. L.

Fisk

A. D.

Rogers

W. A.

(2002). Learning to use a home medical device: Mediating age-related differences with training. Human Factors, 44(3), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497727

55.

A. W. Y.

Chan

A. H. S.

(2007). The guessability of traffic signs: Effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(6), 1245–1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.018

56.

A. W. Y.

Chan

A. H. S.

(2008). The effects of driver factors and sign design features on the comprehensibility of traffic signs. Journal of Safety Research, 39(3), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.02.031

57.

A. W. Y.

Chan

A. H. S.

V. W. S.

(2017). Comprehension by older people of medication information with or without supplementary pharmaceutical pictograms. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.06.005

58.

Nichols

T. A.

Rogers

W. A.

Fisk

A. D.

(2003). Do you know how old your participants are? Ergonomics in Design The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 11(3), 22–26.

59.

Nigam

Kar

B. R.

(2020). Cognitive ageing in developing societies: An overview and a cross-sectional study on young, middle-aged and older adults in the indian context. Psychology and Developing Societies, 32(2), 278–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971333620937511

60.

Y. K.

Liu

Y. C.

(2012). Effects of sign design features and training on comprehension of traffic signs in Taiwanese and Vietnamese user groups. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.009

61.

Paas

Sweller

(2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2

62.

Partida

(2007). Addressing language barriers: Building response capacity for a changing nation. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0367-1

63.

Prada

Rodrigues

Silva

R. R.

Garrido

M. V.

(2016). Lisbon Symbol Database (LSD): Subjective norms for 600 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1370–1382. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0643-7

64.

Rousek

J. B.

Hallbeck

M. S.

(2011). Improving and analyzing signage within a healthcare setting. Applied Ergonomics, 42(6), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.12.004

65.

Sanchez

C. A.

Wiley

(2010). Sex differences in science learning: Closing the gap through animations. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 271–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.003

66.

Schlosser

R. W.

Koul

Shane

Sorce

Brock

Harmon

Moerlein

Hearn

(2014). Effects of animation on naming and identification across two graphic symbol sets representing verbs and prepositions. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 57(5), 1779–1791. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_jslhr-l-13-0193

67.

Shinar

Dewar

Summala

Zakowska

(2003). Traffic sign symbol comprehension: A cross-cultural study. Ergonomics, 46(15), 1549–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013032000121615

68.

Siswandari

Kim

Xiong

S. P.

(2015). Comprehension and redesign of recently introduced water-sport prohibitive symbols in South Korea. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 50, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.09.018

69.

Soemer

Schwan

(2012). Visual mnemonics for language learning: static pictures versus animated morphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029272

70.

SPSS, I. (2013). SPSS statistics for Windows. Armonk, NY: IBM, Corp.

71.

Talamantes

Moreno

Guerrero

L. R.

Mangione

C. M.

Morales

L. S.

(2014). Hablamos juntos (together we speak): A brief patient-reported measure of the quality of interpretation. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 5, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.s68699

72.

Terribilli

Schaufelberger

M. S.

Duran

F. L.

Zanetti

M. V.

Curiati

P. K.

Menezes

P. R.

Scazufca

Amaro

Jr. Leite

C. C.

Busatto

G. F.

(2011). Age-related gray matter volume changes in the brain during non-elderly adulthood. Neurobiology of aging, 32(2), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.02.008

73.

Tunuguntla

Rodriguez

Ruiz

J. G.

Qadri

S. S.

Mintzer

M. J.

Van Zuilen

M. H.

Roos

B. A.

(2008). Computer-based animations and static graphics as medical student aids in learning home safety assessment: A randomized controlled trial. Medical Teacher, 30(8), 815–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590802263508

74.

Tversky

Morrison

J. B.

Betrancourt

(2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017

75.

Viera

Colon

Alonso

Armas

Rico

M. C.

Diaz

Pagan

Del Carpio-Cano

DeLa Cadena

R. A.

(2011). Improving patient provider communication for Latinos at Temple University Hospital and Temple University School of Medicine. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 22(4), 1144–1150. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2011.0152

76.

Wolff

J. S.

Wogalter

M. S.

(1998). Comprehension of pictorial symbols: Effects of context and test method. Human Factors, 40(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480433

77.

Wong

Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Ayres

Paas

(2015). Gender effects when learning manipulative tasks from instructional animations and static presentations. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 37–52.

78.

Wong

Castro-Alonso

J. C.

Ayres

Paas

(2018). Investigating gender and spatial measurements in instructional animation research. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.017

79.

Wong

Marcus

Ayres

Smith

Cooper

G. A.

Paas

Sweller

(2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012

80.

Ridgely

M. S.

Escarce

J. J.

Morales

L. S.

(2007). Language access services for Latinos with limited English proficiency: Lessons learned from Hablamos Juntos. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0323-0