ArticleCognitive processing2026
The impact of perceived human and computer interaction on collaborative learning: insights from the Map Task.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Learning new skills and information becomes more challenging as people get older, but learning collaboratively can provide benefits to learning in older age. Prior work has predominantly focused on improved learning in terms of accuracy and efficiency when interacting with another human compared to learning alone, while the potential benefits of a human learning with a computer are understudied. It has been reported that older adults learn more efficiently and accurately when they believe they are interacting with a human compared to a computer to perform the Barrier Task. In the current study, we examined the effect of agency on performance on the Map Task, a test that measures spatial cognition, where participants must orally collaborate to reproduce a route printed on one participant's map onto another's, and which is considered a more ecologically valid measure of real-life communication compared to other materials used to study collaborative learning. We used a Wizard-of-Oz paradigm, in which participants interacted with a computer system, but were told that they were interacting with either a human assistant or computer. Twenty-four older adult participants (aged 66-79 years) completed an adapted version of the Map Task with a (perceived) human partner or computer to plan and execute a route, doing so through conversation. Overall, participants engaged similarly with their human and computer partner, but recall was more accurate when the information had been provided by the human, compared to the computer. Participants' negative perceptions about the computer-provided information may have driven this effect. These findings may influence how voice-based learning systems are introduced to older end-users, and strategies for negotiating agency between the human user and the voice-based system, to influence collaborative learning in older age. Future work should attempt to replicate these findings in a larger sample.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.