This project focuses on asessing the differences between a user's preferred settings and a set of settings optimized for memory and recall. During the experiment the above code will be run to administer a testing suite first collecting preferential setting and then asessing a user's performance in terms of accuracy and speed through 3 different tests. Each test is formed from a memory recall evaluation consisting of 1 set of 10-15 words and their definitions. Each test will be administered one at a time and the order of each test will be randomized between subjects. The word font, position, size, and color alongside the time each word and its definition is present on the screen will be based on user input for test 1. For test 2, an amalgamation of user preferences and optimized settings will be used. For test 3, optimized settings based on previous research will be used. These changes in features will be our independent variables designed to evoke change in the dependent variables mentioned later. The order in which tests 1,2,3 are shown will be randomized to ensure a valid correlation outside of increased performance over time. Once the words from a single Test have been shown and looked over by the user, they will be tested on 2 separate features: Correct identification of definition based on a word, and time necessary to recall for each feature. These are our dependent (measured) variables. Additionally, after the Nth set is completed and the user has been tested on it, they will also be subjected to a recall test for the N-1th set. For the final set since there is no N+1th set to retest the Nth set, a dummy set with different settings will be presented but not quizzed. Once completed results will be calculated to determine whether preferential, mixed, or optimized settings outperform each other. Additionally, as the time allotted to each card may make a substantial difference a penalty coefficient will be implemented to reduce the score for tests in which a high allotted time per card is used. Finally a correlative value can be calculated between the user chosen features, the ones they performed best on, and the optimized features. In this way we seek to show that a user's preference may outweight a selection of the best criterion for textual memorization.
We had group meetings at least once a week, aiming for twice a week. Typically, this happened on Mondays and Thursdays. Similar to the sprint approach, we made use of this time to debug problems, showcase new ideas, create new ideas in Jira, etc. We will continue to use Jira and allocate assignments appropriately for future work discussions.
NOTE: Everyone in this group contributed towards research of this project.
Most of the summary and opening were written by Zach. He was mostly in charge of testing suite implementation. He dealt. Not only that, but he is the author of the project's original concept.
Jake was in charge of the Unity's initial survey code. Initially, Unity was going to generate a connection to a Google form. After much testing and running into problems, it was decided that it would be best to maintain Google Forms separate.
The Related Works Section was finished by Hunter. He also added buttons for font and font color and incorporated hiding overlays.
Jay created all of the menus from scratch, Added functionality to buttons so the menus actually flow and eventually change scenes, contributed to the procurement of research articles to use in the paper
At least once a week, if not twice, we held group meetings. This usually occurred on Mondays and Thursdays. We used this time, much like the sprint method, to fix issues, provide fresh ideas, add new concepts to Jira, etc.
NOTE: Everyone in this group contributed towards research of this project. Many sections of the paper were written and rewritten during this checkpoint all members contributed to the essay produced up until this point.
- Testing scene.
- Everything related to or pertaining to the testing part of the prototype.
- Mixed settings algorithim.
- Proper run sequence of prototype.
- Implementation of settings onto flashcards:
- Mixed Settings.
- Optimal Settings.
- Retention set testing.
- Results scene creation.
- Additional functionality to properly load new options.
- Nontrivial updates to prototype design to incorperate previously overlooked features.
- Percentage of work: 31.515%
- Assisted with bug fixes and provided ideas when needed
- Flashcard scene UI Update
- Background scene
- Matched Font Size with Menu Scene
- Matched Font color with Menu Scene
- Assisted Jay with schema/skeleton for timer functionality on flashcard scenes
- Ideating the beginning stages of the experiment's conduction.
- Percentage of work: 10.845%
- Added functionality to the following parts of the prototype:
- Font Type selection.
- Font Size selection.
- Font Color selection.
- Background Color selection.
- Complete VR Overhall:
- Menus.
- Scenes.
- Cameras.
- A vast array of bugfixes due to VR port.
- Assisted in implementing the base code for loading and setting user options.
- Percentage of work: 31.515%
- Created menus for the prototype.
- Main menu.
- Options menu.
- Accompanying edits to functionality.
- Various button implementations.
- Flashcard scene.
- Basic functionality.
- Timed flip implementation.
- Cleaned UX/UI of the prototype.
- Implementation of results screen.
- Percentage of work: 26.125%
https://www.overleaf.com/read/fhfwzfvydjhy