High-demand tasks requiring multiple screens and prolonged attention often lead to cognitive load and fatigue. This study examines the effects of spatial contiguity—both in the visual field and depth—on cognitive load in augmented reality (AR) environments. Two experiments with eye-tracking and pupillary response measures analyzed different separation levels. Findings indicate that increasing spatial separation heightens extraneous and germane cognitive load, leading to greater mental effort. These results highlight the importance of proximity in AR interface design to minimize cognitive load and enhance information integration, contributing to the development of ergonomically optimized workspaces.
AcamporaG.CookD. J.RashidiP.VasilakosA. V. (2013). A survey on ambient intelligence in healthcare. Proceedings of the IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 101(12), 2470–2494. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2013.2262913
2.
Andrade-LoteroL. A. (2012). Teoría de la carga cognitiva, diseño multimedia y aprendizaje: Un estado del arte. Magis. Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, 5, 75–92.
3.
BabuM. D.JeevithaShreeD. V.PrabhakarG.SalujaK. P. S.PashilkarA.BiswasP. (2019). Estimating pilots’ cognitive load from ocular parameters through simulation and in-flight studies. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.12.3.3
4.
BautistaL. E.GuerreroJ.PlataC. (2022). Multimedia principles applied to a virtual reality application design for procedural learning. Avances en Interacción Humano-Computadora, 7(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.47756/aihc.y7i1.119
5.
BeegeM.WirzbergerM.NebelS.SchneiderS.SchmidtN.ReyG. D. (2019). Spatial continuity effect vs. spatial contiguity failure. Revising the effects of spatial proximity between related and unrelated representations. Frontiers in Education, 4(August), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00086
6.
BiswasP.DuttV.LangdonP. (2016). Comparing ocular parameters for cognitive load measurement in eye-gaze-controlled interfaces for automotive and desktop computing environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 32(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1084112
7.
BodemerD.FaustU. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.00
8.
BrunkenR.PlassJ. L.LeutnerD.BrünkenR.PlassJ. L. (2016). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology, 1520(July), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801
9.
BuchnerJ.BuntinsK.KerresM. (2022). The impact of augmented reality on cognitive load and performance: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12617
10.
CammeraatS.RopG.de KoningB. B. (2020). The influence of spatial distance and signaling on the split-attention effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106203
11.
ChengT.LuY.YangC. (2015). Using the multi-display teaching system to lower cognitive load. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 18, 128–140. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.4.128
12.
CohenC. A.HegartyM. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.002
13.
da Silva CastanheiraK.LoParcoS.OttoA. R. (2021). Task-evoked pupillary responses track effort exertion: Evidence from task-switching. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(3), 592–606. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00843-z
14.
de HaanG.DittmarA. (2016). The role of cognitive ergonomics in interaction design, addressing advances in HCI. In Proceedings of the European conference on cognitive ergonomics pp. 1–3.
15.
EnsB.FinneganR.IraniP. (2014). The personal cockpit: A spatial interface for effective task switching on head-worn displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3171–3180. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557058
16.
FujimotoY.YamamotoG.MiyazakiJ.KatoH. (2012). Relation between location of information displayed by augmented reality and user’s memorization. In ACM international conference proceedings series (pp. 0–7). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2160125.2160132
17.
GengX.YamadaM. (2020). The effects of augmented reality on learning performance and cognitive load using the spatial continuity principle. International Association for Development of the Information Society. https://doi.org/10.33965/celda2020_202014l030
HolsanovaJ.HolmbergN.HolmqvistK. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525
20.
HouL.WangX.BernoldL.LoveP. E. D. (2013). Using animated augmented reality to cognitively guide assembly. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 27(5), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000184
21.
JohnsonC. I.MayerR. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0026923
22.
KalyugaS.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(Suppl. 1), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1773
23.
KimJ. Y.ChoiJ. K. (2025). Effects of AR on cognitive processes: An experimental study on object manipulation, eye-tracking, and behavior observation in design education. Sensors, 25(6), 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25061882
24.
KlepschM.SchmitzF.SeufertT. (2017). Development and validation of a subjective cognitive load measure for instructional design. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997
25.
KlepschM.SeufertT. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science, 48(1), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09502-9
26.
KrügerJ. M.BodemerD. (2022). Application and investigation of multimedia design principles in augmented reality learning environments. Information, 13(2), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13020074
27.
KrügerJ. M.PalzerK.BodemerD. (2022). Learning with augmented reality: Impact of dimensionality and spatial abilities. Computers and Education Open, 3, Article 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100065
28.
LeiX.TsaiY.-L.RauP.-L. P. (2019). Effect of layout on user performance and subjective evaluation in an augmented-reality environment. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11576, 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21999-9_32
29.
López GilM.Orueta SánchezR.Gómez-CaroS.Sánchez OropesaA.Carmona de la MorenaJ.Alonso MorenoF. J. (2009). El rol de Cuidador de personas dependientes y sus repercusiones sobre su Calidad de Vida y su Salud. Revista clínica de medicina de familia, 2(7), 332–339.
30.
MajooniA.MasoodM.AkhavanA. (2016). An eye tracking experiment on strategies to minimize the redundancy and split attention effects in scientific graphs and diagrams. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 500, 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6_47
31.
MayerR. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy. Spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles (pp. 183–200). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.013
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
34.
MüllerT.DauenhauerR. (2016). A taxonomy for information linking in augmented reality. Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: Third International Conference, AVR 2016, Lecce, Italy, June 15-18, 2016. Proceedings, Part I, 3, 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40621-3
35.
MwambeO. O.TanP. X.KamiokaE. (2021). Endogenous eye blinking rate to support human–automation interaction for e-learning multimedia content specification. Education Sciences, 11(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020049
36.
NielsenM.StörringM.MoeslundT. B.GranumE. (2004). A procedure for developing intuitive and ergonomic gesture interfaces for HCI. In Gesture-based communication in human-computer interaction: 5th international gesture workshop, GW 2003, Genova, Italy, April 15-17, 2003, selected revised papers 5 (pp. 409–420). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
37.
OguetaM. I. G. (1991) (In press). Atención y sus cambios en el espacio visual. Cognitiva, 3(2), 205–236.
38.
OyamaA.TakedaS.ItoY.NakajimaT.TakamiY.TakeyaY.SugimotoK.ShimizuH.ShimamuraM.KatayamaT.RakugiH.MorishitaR. (2019). Novel method for rapid assessment of cognitive impairment using high-performance eye-tracking technology. Scientific Reports, 9(1), Article 12932. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49275-x
39.
PaasF.TuovinenJ.TabbersH.Van GervenP. W. M. (2010). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 1520(38), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801
40.
PaekS.HoffmanD. L.SaravanosA. (2017). Spatial contiguity and incidental learning in multimedia environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1390–1401. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12488
41.
PolysN. F.BowmanD. A.NorthC. (2011). The role of depth and gestalt cues in information-rich virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(1-2), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.05.007
42.
Roncancio-OrtizA. P.Ortiz-CarreraM. F.Llano-RuizH.Malpica-LópezM. J.Bocanegra-GarcíaJ. J. (2017). El uso de los videojuegos como herramienta didáctica para mejorar la enseñanza-aprendizaje: una revisión del estado del tema. Ingeniería Investigación y Desarrollo, 17(2), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.19053/1900771X.v17.n2.2017.7184
SchroederN. L.CenkciA. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-018-9435-9
45.
SerajiF.BayatZ.Abbasi KasaniH.AbediH. (2020). Comparing two forms of spatial contiguity principle in student learning:'Text linked to image'versus' text in image adjacency. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 11(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.30476/IJVLMS.2020.85968.1029
46.
SeufertT.BrünkerR. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1248
47.
ŞimşekB.DirekciB.KoparanB.CanbulatM.GülmezM.NalçacıgilE. (2025). Examining the effect of augmented reality experience duration on reading comprehension and cognitive load. Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 1445–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12864-z
48.
SpruitE. N.BandG. P. H.HammingJ. F.RidderinkhofK. R. (2014). Optimal training design for procedural motor skills: A review and application to laparoscopic surgery. Psychological Research, 78(6), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0525-5
49.
SuR. E.BaileyB. P. (2005). Put them where? Towards guidelines for positioning large displays in interactive workspaces. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3585, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/11555261_29
50.
SusacA.BubicA.PlaninicM.MovreM.PalmovicM. (2019). Role of diagrams in problem solving: An evaluation of eye-tracking parameters as a measure of visual attention. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), Article 13101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.013101
51.
SuzukiY.WildF.ScanlonE. (2024). Measuring cognitive load in augmented reality with physiological methods: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12882
52.
SwellerJ. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational technology research and development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
53.
Van der WelP.Van SteenbergenH. (2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(6), 2005–2015. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y
54.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.KesterL. (2014). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 104–148). Cambridge University Press.
55.
ZhangM.QuintanaC. (2012). Scaffolding strategies for supporting middle school students’ online inquiry processes. Computers & Education, 58(1), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.016
