- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Visualization enhances problem solving in multiqubit systems

Jonas Bley1,2,*, Eva Rexigel1, Alda Arias1, Lars Krupp2,3, Nikolas Longen3, Paul Lukowicz2,3, Stefan Küchemann4, Jochen Kuhn4, Maximilian Kiefer-Emmanouilidis2,3 et al.

Artur Widera1

  • *Contact author: jonas.bley@rptu.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010126 – Published 2 March, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hqzq-fbrb

Abstract

Quantum information science (QIS) is a vast, diverse, and abstract field. In consequence, learners face many challenges. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education research has found that visualizations are valuable for aiding learners in complex matters. The conditions under which visualizations pose benefits are largely unexplored in QIS education. In this eye-tracking study, we examine the conditions under which the visualization of multiqubit systems with the dimensional circle notation (DCN) in addition to the mathematical symbolic Dirac notation (DN) is associated with a benefit for solving problems on the ubiquitously used hadamard gate operation, in terms of performance, extraneous cognitive load (ECL) and intrinsic cognitive load (ICL). We find that DCN increases performance and reduces cognitive load for participants with little experience in quantum physics. In addition, representational competence predicts reductions in ECL with DCN, but not performance or ICL. Analysis of the eye-tracking results indicates that task solvers with more transitions between DN and DCN benefit less from the visualization. We discuss the generalizability of the results and practical implications.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (90)

  1. B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, An elementary quantum network of entangled optical atomic clocks, Nature (London) 609, 689 (2022).
  2. N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157 (2023).
  3. M. Rademacher, J. Millen, and Y. L. Li, Quantum sensing with nanoparticles for gravimetry: When bigger is better, Adv. Opt. Technol. 9, 227 (2020).
  4. B. Stray et al., Quantum sensing for gravity cartography, Nature (London) 602, 590 (2022).
  5. A. J. Daley, I. Bloch, C. Kokail, S. Flannigan, N. Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature (London) 607, 667 (2022).
  6. C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Applications of single photons to quantum communication and computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 326 (2023).
  7. A. Blais, S. M. Girvin, and W. D. Oliver, Quantum information processing and quantum optics with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 16, 247 (2020).
  8. H.-L. Huang, D. Wu, D. Fan, and X. Zhu, Superconducting quantum computing: A review, Sci. China Inf. Sci. 63, 180501 (2020).
  9. M. Cerezo, G. Verdon, H.-Y. Huang, L. Cincio, and P. J. Coles, Challenges and opportunities in quantum machine learning, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 567 (2022).
  10. Y. Wang, L. Zhang, Z. Yu, and X. Wang, Quantum phase processing and its applications in estimating phase and entropies, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062413 (2023).
  11. V. Kasirajan, Fundamentals of Quantum Computing (Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2021).
  12. C. D. Aiello et al., Achieving a quantum smart workforce, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 030501 (2021).
  13. M. Kaur and A. Venegas-Gomez, Defining the quantum workforce landscape: A review of global quantum education initiatives, Opt. Eng. 61, 081806 (2022).
  14. National Quantum Initiative Act, Public Law No. 115–368, enacted December 21, 2018, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ368/PLAW-115publ368.pdf (2018).
  15. Quantum Flagship, European Commission research initiative launched October 2018 with 1∈  billion funding over 10 years, https://qt.eu/about-quantum-flagship/ (2018).
  16. J. C. Meyer, G. Passante, and B. Wilcox, Disparities in access to U.S. quantum information education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010131 (2024).
  17. A. Donhauser, P. Bitzenbauer, L. Qerimi, S. Heusler, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and M. S. Ubben, Empirical insights into the effects of research-based teaching strategies in quantum education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020601 (2024).
  18. L. Nita, L. M. Smith, N. Chancellor, and H. C. and, The challenge and opportunities of quantum literacy for future education and transdisciplinary problem-solving, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 41, 564 (2023).
  19. P. Hu, Y. Li, and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of the basics of quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020108 (2024).
  20. F. Seifollahi and C. Singh, Preparing students for the quantum information revolution: Interdisciplinary teaching, curriculum development, and advising in quantum information science and engineering, Eur. J. Phys. 46, 055709 (2025).
  21. T. Kushimo and B. Thacker, Investigating students’ strengths and difficulties in quantum computing, in Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) (2023), Vol. 03, pp. 33–39, 10.1109/QCE57702.2023.20322.
  22. S. Ainsworth, The functions of multiple representations, Comput. Educ. 33, 131 (1999).
  23. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, L. Krupp, S. Steinert, N. Longen, P. Lukowicz, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, and A. Widera, Visualizing quantum states: A pilot study on problem solving in quantum information science education, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020160 (2025).
  24. L. Hu, G. Chen, P. Li, and J. Huang, Multimedia effect in problem solving: A meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 1717 (2021).
  25. L. Schewior and M. A. Lindner, Revisiting picture functions in multimedia testing: A systematic narrative review and taxonomy extension, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36, 49 (2024).
  26. F. Paas and J. Sweller, Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by E. R. Meyer, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014), pp. 27–42.
  27. R. E. Mayer, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014), pp. 43–71.
  28. J. Fletcher and S. Tobias, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005), Vol. 117, p. 133.
  29. P. A. Kirschner, B. Park, S. Malone, and H. Jarodzka, Toward a cognitive theory of multimedia assessment (CTMMA), in Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, edited by M. J. Spector, B. B. Lockee, and M. D. Childress (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017), pp. 1–23.
  30. M. A. Lindner, A. Eitel, G.-B. Thoma, I. M. Dalehefte, J. M. Ihme, and O. Köller, Tracking the decision-making process in multiple-choice assessment: Evidence from eye movements, Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28, 738 (2014).
  31. M. A. Lindner, A. Eitel, B. Strobel, and O. Köller, Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis, Learn. Instr. 47, 91 (2017).
  32. M. A. Lindner, Representational and decorative pictures in science and mathematics tests: Do they make a difference?, Learn. Instr. 68, 101345 (2020).
  33. N. K. Sundararajan and O. Adesope, Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 32, 707 (2020).
  34. Visualization in Science Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2005), 10.1007/1-4020-3613-2.
  35. N. Munfaridah, L. Avraamidou, and M. Goedhart, The use of multiple representations in undergraduate physics education: What do we know and where do we go from here?, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 17, em1934 (2021).
  36. L. Stark, R. Brünken, and B. Park, Emotional text design in multimedia learning: A mixed-methods study using eye tracking, Comput. Educ. 120, 185 (2018).
  37. L. Stark, A. Korbach, R. Brünken, and B. Park, Measuring (meta)cognitive processes in multimedia learning: Matching eye tracking metrics and think-aloud protocols in case of seductive details, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 40, 2985 (2024).
  38. S. Ainsworth, The multiple representations principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 158–170.
  39. S. Ainsworth, Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learn. Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  40. M. R. Novriani and E. S. I. Dewi, Development of learning materials with visualization, auditory, kinesthetic (vak) model to improve students’ mathematics reasoning ability and self-confidence, Development 10, 29 (2019).
  41. J. a. Velázquez-Iturbide, I. Hernán-Losada, and M. Paredes-Velasco, Evaluating the effect of program visualization on student motivation, IEEE Trans. Ed. 60, 238 (2017).
  42. C. Lacave, J. ángel Velázquez-Iturbide, M. Paredes-Velasco, and A. I. Molina, Analyzing the influence of a visualization system on students’ emotions: An empirical case study, Comput. Educ. 149, 103817 (2020).
  43. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cogn. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  44. R. E. Mayer, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2021), pp. 57–72.
  45. S. Kalyuga, Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 23, 1 (2011).
  46. F. Krieglstein, M. Beege, G. D. Rey, P. Ginns, M. Krell, and S. Schneider, A systematic meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of subjective cognitive load questionnaires in experimental multimedia learning research, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 2485 (2022).
  47. S. Kalyuga and J. Sweller, The redundancy principle in multimedia learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014), pp. 247–262.
  48. J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, The expertise reversal effect, in Cognitive Load Theory (Springer, New York, NY, 2011), pp. 155–170.
  49. G. D. . Rey and F. Buchwald, The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17, 33 (2011).
  50. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educ. Psychol. 38, 43 (2003).
  51. R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, 12 principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2014), Vol. 279, pp. 279–315.
  52. R. E. Mayer, Evidence-based principles for how to design effective instructional videos, J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10, 229 (2021).
  53. M. A. Rau, Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing stem learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 717 (2017).
  54. W. Schnotz, An integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. Mayer, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005), pp. 49–70.
  55. M. Öllinger and A. von Müller, Quantum science in a nutshell: Fostering students’ functional understanding of models, Front. Psychol. 8, 1192708 (2017).
  56. M. S. Ubben, J. M. Veith, A. Merzel, and P. Bitzenbauer, Quantum science in a nutshell: Fostering students’ functional understanding of models, Front. Educ. 8, 147 (2023).
  57. D. H. Uttal and C. A. Cohen, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, edited by B. H. Ross, Psychology of Learning and Motivation Vol. 57 (Academic Press, New York, 2012), pp. 147–181, 10.1016/B978-0-12-394293-7.00004-2.
  58. H. A. Taylor, H. Burte, and K. T. Renshaw, Connecting spatial thinking to stem learning through visualizations, Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2, 637 (2023).
  59. E. Rexigel, J. Bley, A. Arias, L. Qerimi, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera, Investigating the use of multiple representations in university courses on quantum technologies, Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 12, 22 (2025).
  60. A. Merzel, E. Y. Weissman, N. Katz, and I. Galili, Mathematical structures in quantum physics education for high school students: Unveiling the power of dirac notation for conceptual and problem-solving proficiency, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 020134 (2024).
  61. E. R. Johnston, N. Harrigan, and M. Gimeno-Segovia, Programming Quantum Computers: Essential Algorithms and Code Samples (O’Reilly Media, Incorporated, Sebastopol, CA, 2019).
  62. B. Just, Quantum Computing Compact, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2023), first edition released in 2020 in German.
  63. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, N. Longen, L. Krupp, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, P. Lukowicz, A. Donhauser, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, and A. Widera, Visualizing entanglement in multiqubit systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023077 (2024).
  64. J. Bley, E. Rexigel, A. Arias, L. Krupp, N. Longen, P. Lukowicz, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, and A. Widera, Visualization enhances problem solving in multiqubit systems: Data, 10.5281/zenodo.15382444 (2025).
  65. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/hqzq-fbrb for the introductory video, the overall structure of the survey with the item labels, and the galley proofs of the translation and procedural competence questions as well as the main survey questions.
  66. M. J. Gierl, O. Bulut, Q. Guo, and X. Zhang, Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review, Rev. Educ. Res. 87, 1082 (2017).
  67. M. Klepsch, F. Schmitz, and T. Seufert, Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load, Front. Psychol. 8, 1997 (2017).
  68. B. C. O. F. Fehringer, Spatial thinking from a different view: Disentangling top-down and bottom-up processes using eye tracking, Open Psychol. 2, 138 (2020).
  69. P. Henn, A. G. Gallagher, E. Nugent, N. E. Seymour, R. S. Haluck, H. Hseino, O. Traynor, and P. C. Neary, Visual spatial ability for surgical trainees: Implications for learning endoscopic, laparoscopic surgery and other image-guided procedures, Surg. Endosc. 32, 3634 (2018).
  70. E. Alemdag and K. Cagiltay, A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning, Comput. Educ. 125, 413 (2018).
  71. X. Liu and Y. Cui, Eye tracking technology for examining cognitive processes in education: A systematic review, Comput. Educ. 229, 105263 (2025).
  72. A. Korbach, P. Ginns, R. Brünken, and B. Park, Should learners use their hands for learning? Results from an eye-tracking study, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 36, 102 (2020).
  73. D. D. Salvucci and J. H. Goldberg, Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols, in Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, ETRA ’00 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2000), pp. 71–78, 10.1145/355017.355028.
  74. M. Aickin and H. Gensler, Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: The bonferroni vs holm methods, Am. J. Public Health 86, 726 (1996).
  75. S. Holm, A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure, Scand. J. Stat. Theory Appl. 6, 65 (1979).
  76. D. L. Streiner and G. R. Norman, Correction for multiple testing: Is there a resolution?, Chest 140, 16 (2011).
  77. R. A. Armstrong, When to use the bonferroni correction, Ophthalmic Physiolog. Opt. 34, 502 (2014).
  78. G. M. Sullivan and R. Feinn, Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough, J. Grad. Med. Educ. 4, 279 (2012).
  79. A. K. Montoya, Moderation analysis in two-instance repeated measures designs: Probing methods and multiple moderator models, Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 51, 61 (2019).
  80. B. A. Schneider, M. Avivi-Reich, and M. Mozuraitis, A cautionary note on the use of the analysis of covariance (ancova) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors, Front. Psychol. 6, 474 (2015).
  81. L. S. Nelson, The Anderson-Darling test for normality, J. Qual. Technol. 30, 298 (1998).
  82. R. F. Woolson, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, in Encyclopedia of Biostatistics (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York, 2005), Chap. 8, 10.1002/0470011815.b2a15177.
  83. T. S. Breusch and A. R. Pagan, A simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefficient variation, Econometrica 47, 1287 (1979).
  84. S. E. Fienberg, Graphical methods in statistics, Am. Stat. 33, 165 (1979).
  85. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Investigating and improving student understanding of quantum mechanical observables and their corresponding operators in dirac notation, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 015707 (2017).
  86. D. Huber and S. J. Glaser, Beads: A canonical visualization of quantum states for applications in quantum information processing, New J. Phys. 27, 094509 (2025).
  87. https://github.com/QuanTUK/.
  88. https://dcn.physik.rptu.de/.
  89. E. Rexigel, J. Kuhn, S. Becker, and S. Malone, The more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of more than two external representations in stem education, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 36, 124 (2024).
  90. M. Baars, L. Wijnia, and F. Paas, The association between motivation, affect, and self-regulated learning when solving problems, Front. Psychol. 8, 1346 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010126– Published 2 March, 2026
  • Received 29 May 2025
  • Accepted 28 January 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation