@Syntactically, the difference is essentially the same as that between a car radio and a loud radio. That's to say, interaction is a noun, whereas interactive is an adjective.
We don't usually use the noun adjunct / attributive noun version if there's a morphological variant of that noun that can be used adjectivally. In fact, I'm tempted to say probably the main reason for noun adjunct usages is contexts where there simply isn't a commonly-used adjective based on the relevant noun.
By implication therefore, using the noun form in OP's example is "marked" (non-standard, not what the audience would have expected). With more context, we might be able to guess at a possible "nuance" that might cause a competent speaker/writer to choose the less common form. For example,...
John really shouldn't sit in his room reading books all day. He won't actually go out and speak to real people, but perhaps we can encourage him to use his computer as an interaction device.
I know it's not a great example, but I do think the above tends to put more emphasis on John using the device for interaction with other people, whereas an interactive device is usually understood to imply interaction with the device itself (in my specific context; it might be different elsewhere).
If you're a non-native speaker it's obviously far more difficult to know how your use of a "non-standard" form would be interpreted. There won't be so many examples, and those you do come across may cover a variety of different context-dependent intended meanings. Plus if you specifically go searching for non-standard usages, you might end up seeing a higher proportion of "suspect" usages from other nns (and perhaps less competent native speakers), which could seriously distort your developing sense of how native speakers usually phrase things.
So my advice is to always use the adjectival form in such contexts if you have a choice - unless the specific collocation is one you've often heard (such as a sports car rather than a sporty car).
