CS295J/Research proposal - Revision history

E J Kalafarski: /* Significance */

2009-04-17T15:41:04Z

Significance

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 17 April 2009
Line 290:		Line 290:
	With this project architecture, we seek the unfettered and "domain-specific" pursuit of "hard" problems both in the cognitive and practical usability domains. At the same time, however, we have provided an explicit, quantified manner of extending principles and techniques that emerge in either of these domains into the other. This symmetric approach supports our fundamental assumption that despite theoretical underpinnings that have evolved independently, the cognitive aspects of HCI and empirical observation in the field of usability over the last 20 years are governed by the same computational and psychological forces, and can thus be related and developed in parallel to greater efficiency and effect. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)		With this project architecture, we seek the unfettered and "domain-specific" pursuit of "hard" problems both in the cognitive and practical usability domains. At the same time, however, we have provided an explicit, quantified manner of extending principles and techniques that emerge in either of these domains into the other. This symmetric approach supports our fundamental assumption that despite theoretical underpinnings that have evolved independently, the cognitive aspects of HCI and empirical observation in the field of usability over the last 20 years are governed by the same computational and psychological forces, and can thus be related and developed in parallel to greater efficiency and effect. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

			==="Big World" Goals===
			* Broader understanding of basic, reliable usability principles and more prevalent application of them.
			* Efficient, profitable, and compatible usability application methods in business.
			* A set of usability principles that supersedes Human-Computer Interaction and is applicable in all varieties of product development. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 15:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

	== Three-Week Feasibility Studies ==		== Three-Week Feasibility Studies ==

E J Kalafarski: /* Project summary */

2009-04-17T14:58:30Z

Project summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 17 April 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Project summary==		==Project summary==
	Established guidelines for designing human computer interfaces are based on experience, intuition and introspection. Because there is no integrated theoretical foundation, many ~~rule-sets~~ have emerged despite the absence of comparative ~~evaluations~~. We propose ~~to develop~~ a theoretical foundation for interface design, drawing on recent advances in cognitive ~~science – the~~ study of how people think, perceive and interact with the world. We will distill a broad range of principles and computational models of cognition that are relevant to interface design and use them to compare and unify existing guidelines. To validate our theoretical foundation, we will use our findings to develop a quantitative mechanism for assessing interface designs, identifying interface elements that are detrimental to user performance, and suggesting effective alternatives. Results from this system will be explored over a set of case studies, and the quantitative assessments output by this system will be compared to actual user performance.		Established guidelines for designing human-computer interfaces are based on experience, intuition and introspection. Because there is no integrated theoretical foundation, many rulesets have emerged despite the absence of comparative evaluation. We propose a theoretical foundation for interface design, drawing on recent advances in cognitive science—the study of how people think, perceive and interact with the world.

	~~A central focus of our work~~ will ~~be to broaden the~~ range of ~~cognitive theories~~ that are ~~used in HCI~~ design. ~~Few low-level theories of perception and action~~, ~~such as Fitts's law~~, ~~have garnered general acceptance in the HCI community due~~ to ~~their simple, quantitative nature~~, and ~~wide-spread applicability~~. ~~Our aim is to produce similar predictive models that apply to lower levels~~ of ~~perception as well as higher levels of cognition, including higher-level vision, learning, memory, attention~~, ~~reasoning~~ and ~~task management~~.		We will distill a broad range of principles and computational models of cognition that are relevant to interface design and use them to compare and unify existing guidelines. To validate our theoretical foundation, we will use our findings to develop a quantitative mechanism for assessing interface designs, identifying interface elements that are detrimental to user performance, and suggesting effective alternatives. Results from this system will be explored over a set of case studies, and the quantitative assessments output by this system will be compared to actual user performance.

	~~We will~~ focus ~~on generating extensible, generalizable models~~ of ~~cognition that can~~ be ~~applied~~ to ~~a broad~~ range of ~~interface~~ design ~~challenges. Much research has accumulated regarding how people manage multiple tasks~~, and we will ~~apply it to principles~~ of ~~how an interface should be designed such that it both helps maintain focus~~ in ~~a multi-tasking environment~~ and ~~minimizes~~ the ~~cost~~ of ~~switching to other tasks or applications in~~ the ~~same working sphere. The newer approach of distributed cognition also provides a useful perspective by examining the human~~-~~computer system as a unified cognitive entity~~.		Cognition, in this broad sense, cannot be limited to internal processing. A central focus of our work will be to broaden the range of cognitive theories that are used in HCI design, and we will explore the effects of improvement on all "links" in the interaction "chain"—cognition, perception, and motor skills, the CPM of the so-called CPM-GOMs evaluation method. Few low-level theories of perception and action, such as Fitts's law, have garnered general acceptance in the HCI community due to their simple, quantitative nature, and widespread applicability. Our aim is to produce similar predictive models that apply to lower levels of perception as well as higher levels of cognition, including vision, learning, memory, attention, reasoning and task management.
	<!--
	~~We propose to integrate~~ theories ~~of cognition, models~~ of perception, ~~rules of design~~, ~~and concepts from~~ the ~~discipline of human-computer interaction~~ to ~~develop a predictive model of user performance in interacting with computer software for visual~~ and ~~analytical work~~. Our ~~proposed model comprises a set~~ of ~~computational elements representing components~~ of ~~human~~ cognition, memory, ~~or perception. The collective abilities~~ and ~~limitations of these elements can be used to provide feedback on the likely efficacy of user interaction techniques~~.

	~~The choice of human computational elements~~ will be ~~guided by several models or theories~~ of ~~cognition~~ and ~~perception~~, ~~including Gestalt, Distributed, Gibson, ???(where pathway, when pathway)???, ???working-memory???, ...~~, and ~~???~~. The ~~list~~ of ~~elements will be extensible~~. ~~The framework coupling them will allow~~ for ~~experimental predictions~~ of ~~utility of user interfaces that can be verified against~~ human ~~performance.~~		We will focus on generating an extensible, generalizable framework that can be applied to a broad range of interface design challenges. Interfaces exist everywhere in the modern world, and much research has accumulated regarding how people manage multiple tasks, how machines distribute tasks and work, and how devices communicate and anticipate user action effective. The promise of such a foundation is rich, and the potential benefits game-changing. We intend to do no less than provide new methodology for the examination of the human-computer system as a unified cognitive entity. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 14:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

	~~Coupling the~~ system ~~with users will involve a data capture mechanism for collecting the communications between a user interface and~~ a ~~user~~. ~~These will be primarily event based, and will include a new low-cost camera-based eye-tracking system~~

	~~During early development~~, ~~existing interfaces will be evaluated manually to characterize their~~

	(~~we need some way to specify interaction techniques...~~)
	~~-->~~

	==Specific Contributions==		==Specific Contributions==

Steven Ellis: added model human processor to background

2009-04-17T00:45:26Z

added model human processor to background

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 17 April 2009
Line 92:		Line 92:

	For several reasons however, not the least of which is the difficulty in defining the detail level at which an interface ought to operate, embodied models are unlikely to become substitutes for human subjects in the near future.		For several reasons however, not the least of which is the difficulty in defining the detail level at which an interface ought to operate, embodied models are unlikely to become substitutes for human subjects in the near future.

			==== Model Human Processor ====
			The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_information_processor_model Model Human Processor] (MHP) is a highly formal conception of human cognitive processes. The model applies almost exclusively to the accomplishment of directed tasks, and is the calculation agent employed by CPM-GOMS in predicting the efficiency of a given interface. The MHP does not portend to present a perfectly accurate estimation of the time required to achieve a given task, but it does promise precision. That is to say – even in cases where the model may underestimate a given task’s completion time by 12%, it will do so consistently for all similar tasks and applications. As a result, completion times predicted by the MHP may vary from recorded examples but predictions of multiple interfaces may still be compared with relatively good faith in predicted efficiency differences (on a ratio basis).

			The model incorporates many mental processes from auditory processing to long-term memory recall and decay, but generalizes all cognitive functions into three subsystems: perceptual, cognitive, and motor. This division is important, as the MHP can handle only one task in each of these subsystems at once. That is to say, the MHP cannot perceive a visual and auditory stimulus at the same time, or move a hand and eye at the same time, but it may perceive one stimulus and conduct one motor action at the same time. This allowed degree of simultaneity is far higher than those of earlier, similar models such as GOMS.

			The MHP was perhaps most notably and successfully used in Project Ernestine, an application of the CPM-GOMS model conducted in the early 1990s. The Ernestine team was hired by a large telecommunications firm to evaluate the efficiency of a proposed new interface. The team predicted, with a high degree of accuracy, the inefficiency of the new design – a prediction which was soon empirically validated through several months of testing by dozens of the firm’s employees. This example made clear several drawbacks of the MHP, however, not the least of which is its relatively rudimentary conceptualization of user actions. That is to say, while the MHP may be effective in analyzing the efficiency of a given telephone keypad, it may be antiquated when one concerns themselves with complex, multifaceted digital interface.


	(Owned by Steven)		(Owned by Steven)

Eric Sodomka: /* Specific Contributions */

2009-04-16T23:16:07Z

Specific Contributions

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, 16 April 2009
Line 28:		Line 28:
	# A low-overhead mechanism for capturing event-based interactions between a user and a computer, including web-cam based eye tracking. (should we buy or find out about borrowing use of pupil tracker?) ''Should we include other methods of interaction here? Audio recognition seems to be the lowest cost. It would seem that a system that took into account head-tracking, audio, and fingertip or some other high-DOF input would provide a very strong foundation for a multi-modal HCI system. It may be more interesting to create a software toolkit that allows for synchronized usage of those inputs than a low-cost hardware setup for pupil-tracking. I agree pupil-tracking is useful, but developing something in-house may not be the strongest contribution we can make with our time.'' (Trevor)		# A low-overhead mechanism for capturing event-based interactions between a user and a computer, including web-cam based eye tracking. (should we buy or find out about borrowing use of pupil tracker?) ''Should we include other methods of interaction here? Audio recognition seems to be the lowest cost. It would seem that a system that took into account head-tracking, audio, and fingertip or some other high-DOF input would provide a very strong foundation for a multi-modal HCI system. It may be more interesting to create a software toolkit that allows for synchronized usage of those inputs than a low-cost hardware setup for pupil-tracking. I agree pupil-tracking is useful, but developing something in-house may not be the strongest contribution we can make with our time.'' (Trevor)
	## Accuracy study of eye tracking (2 cameras? double as an input device?)		## Accuracy study of eye tracking (2 cameras? double as an input device?)
	~~## ???~~
	# An extension to the CPM-GOMS model which accounts for dual-system theories of reasoning and cognition (OWNER - Gideon)		# An extension to the CPM-GOMS model which accounts for dual-system theories of reasoning and cognition (OWNER - Gideon)
	## Dual-process theories (Evans-2003-ITM) usually agree on the nature of high-level cognitive operations which are used in human reasoning. It is also argued that low-level processing, which is based on perceptual similarity, contiguity, and association, is determined by a set of autonomous subsystems. Depending on which system we use when performing cognitive operations, results can vary drastically. Our research project will contribute a set of guidelines to enhance classificatory decisions when implementing the CPM-GOMS model, resulting in more accurate predictions.		## Dual-process theories (Evans-2003-ITM) usually agree on the nature of high-level cognitive operations which are used in human reasoning. It is also argued that low-level processing, which is based on perceptual similarity, contiguity, and association, is determined by a set of autonomous subsystems. Depending on which system we use when performing cognitive operations, results can vary drastically. Our research project will contribute a set of guidelines to enhance classificatory decisions when implementing the CPM-GOMS model, resulting in more accurate predictions.

Eric Sodomka at 23:15, 16 April 2009

2009-04-16T23:15:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:15, 16 April 2009
Line 291:		Line 291:

	With this project architecture, we seek the unfettered and "domain-specific" pursuit of "hard" problems both in the cognitive and practical usability domains. At the same time, however, we have provided an explicit, quantified manner of extending principles and techniques that emerge in either of these domains into the other. This symmetric approach supports our fundamental assumption that despite theoretical underpinnings that have evolved independently, the cognitive aspects of HCI and empirical observation in the field of usability over the last 20 years are governed by the same computational and psychological forces, and can thus be related and developed in parallel to greater efficiency and effect. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)		With this project architecture, we seek the unfettered and "domain-specific" pursuit of "hard" problems both in the cognitive and practical usability domains. At the same time, however, we have provided an explicit, quantified manner of extending principles and techniques that emerge in either of these domains into the other. This symmetric approach supports our fundamental assumption that despite theoretical underpinnings that have evolved independently, the cognitive aspects of HCI and empirical observation in the field of usability over the last 20 years are governed by the same computational and psychological forces, and can thus be related and developed in parallel to greater efficiency and effect. [[User:E J Kalafarski\|E J Kalafarski]] 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


			== Three-Week Feasibility Studies ==

			# 3-Week Feasibility Study: (1) Distill from review articles the major findings in all of the relevant subfields into a set of principles that will be grouped to form appropriate model components. Some of the most relevant subfields include: memory, attention, visual perception, psychoacoustics, task switching, categorization, event perception, and haptics. (2) Use these to devise a simple predictive model of human interaction. This model could simply consist of the set of design principles but should allow some form of quantitative scoring/evaluation of interfaces. (3) Develop a small set of 5-10 candidate GUIs that are designed to help the user accomplish the same overarching task(s) (e.g. importing, analyzing, and flexibly graphing data in Matlab). (4) Test/validate the model by comparing predicted performance to actual performance with the GUIs.
			## Risks/Costs: There are always potential risks to any human subjects that might participate in testing the model which might necessitate IRB approval. Costs might include: (1) paying for any necessary hardware and software for developing, displaying, and testing the GUIs, and (2) paying for human subjects.
			# 3-Week Feasibility Study: 1) Parse from accepted and established design guidelines a number (5–10) of common concepts and rules in practical usability; 2) extract a comparable number (5–10) of cognitive principles from modern applications of cognitive theory; 3) construct a relational matrix of these concepts, establishing approximate weightings for the relationships between cognitive and usable principles and assigning unified UI suggestions to strongly-related pairs; 4) conduct a user study on a small number of highly-controlled UI variants (2–3) proving and refining several of the approximate weightings.
			## Risks/Costs: Costs are low for a primarily-intellectual component, but the potential development of an encompassing framework and the vital role of providing a relational connection between the other disparate components of this proposal indicate a high payoff.
			# 3-week Feasibility Study: To ascertain the feasibility of this project we will conduct an initial pilot test to investigate the core idea: a predictive model of user workflow. We will spend 1 week studying the real workflow of several people through job shadowing. We will then create two systems designed to help a user accomplish some simple information work task. One system will be designed to take larger workflow into account (experimental group), while one will not (control group). In a synthetic environment, participants will perform a controlled series of tasks while receiving interruptions at controlled times. If the two groups perform roughly the same, then we will need to reassess this avenue of research. However, if the two groups perform differrently then our pilot test will have lent support to our approach and core hypothesis.
			## Risks/Costs: Risk will play an important factor in this research, and thus a core goal of our research agenda will be to manage this risk. The most effective way to do this will be to compartmentalize the risk by conducting empirical investigations - which will form the basis for the model - into the separate areas: low-level tasks, working spheres, communication chains, interruptions and multi-tasking in parallel. While one experiment may become bogged down in details, the others will be able to advance sufficiently to contribute to a strong core model, even if one or two facets encounter setbacks during the course of the research agenda. The primary cost drivers will be the preliminary empirical evaluations, the final system implementation, and the final experiments which will be designed to support the original hypothesis. The cost will span student support, both Ph.D. and Master's students, as well as full-time research staff. Projected cost: $1.5 million over three years.
			# 3-Week Feasibility Study: In the course of 30 hours, we may perform a hand-analysis of the empirical results in cognitive psychology in order to develop a set of approximately 10 guidelines or rules.
			## There is no risk for this contribution. Costs associated will be an extensive search of cognitive psychology literature for the past 25 years or so. Research on memory, reasoning, perception and more will be required in order to conduct a complete and accurate assessment.



	==Preliminary results==		==Preliminary results==

Eric Sodomka: /* Specific Contributions */

2009-04-16T23:12:30Z

Specific Contributions

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 16 April 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:
	# A model of human cognitive and perceptual abilities when using computers		# A model of human cognitive and perceptual abilities when using computers
	## Impact: Such a model would allow us to predict human performance with interfaces. Validation of the model would allow us to more rapidly converge on ideal interfaces while simultaneously ruling out sub-optimal ones.		## Impact: Such a model would allow us to predict human performance with interfaces. Validation of the model would allow us to more rapidly converge on ideal interfaces while simultaneously ruling out sub-optimal ones.
	## 3-Week Feasibility Study: (1) Distill from review articles the major findings in all of the relevant subfields into a set of principles that will be grouped to form appropriate model components. Some of the most relevant subfields include: memory, attention, visual perception, psychoacoustics, task switching, categorization, event perception, and haptics. (2) Use these to devise a simple predictive model of human interaction. This model could simply consist of the set of design principles but should allow some form of quantitative scoring/evaluation of interfaces. (3) Develop a small set of 5-10 candidate GUIs that are designed to help the user accomplish the same overarching task(s) (e.g. importing, analyzing, and flexibly graphing data in Matlab). (4) Test/validate the model by comparing predicted performance to actual performance with the GUIs.
	## Risks/Costs: There are always potential risks to any human subjects that might participate in testing the model which might necessitate IRB approval. Costs might include: (1) paying for any necessary hardware and software for developing, displaying, and testing the GUIs, and (2) paying for human subjects.
	# A classification of standard design guidelines into overarching principles and measurement of the relation of each design principle with quantifiable cognitive principles (usability/cognition matrix). (OWNERS: E J Kalafarski, Adam Darlow)		# A classification of standard design guidelines into overarching principles and measurement of the relation of each design principle with quantifiable cognitive principles (usability/cognition matrix). (OWNERS: E J Kalafarski, Adam Darlow)
	## Components: 1) A ranking/weighting of the relevance of each cognitive principle to each design principle. 2) Specific rules for designing/assessing interfaces with respect to leveraging each cognitive principle for its most closely related design principles.		## Components: 1) A ranking/weighting of the relevance of each cognitive principle to each design principle. 2) Specific rules for designing/assessing interfaces with respect to leveraging each cognitive principle for its most closely related design principles.
	## Impact: With this proposal's stated goal of bringing together the independently-pursued but related realms of cognition and practical usability, such a classification plays a vital role in the concrete and extensible connectivity of other contributions of this proposal and their theoretical relationships and underpinnings.		## Impact: With this proposal's stated goal of bringing together the independently-pursued but related realms of cognition and practical usability, such a classification plays a vital role in the concrete and extensible connectivity of other contributions of this proposal and their theoretical relationships and underpinnings.
	## 3-Week Feasibility Study: 1) Parse from accepted and established design guidelines a number (5–10) of common concepts and rules in practical usability; 2) extract a comparable number (5–10) of cognitive principles from modern applications of cognitive theory; 3) construct a relational matrix of these concepts, establishing approximate weightings for the relationships between cognitive and usable principles and assigning unified UI suggestions to strongly-related pairs; 4) conduct a user study on a small number of highly-controlled UI variants (2–3) proving and refining several of the approximate weightings.
	## Risks/Costs: Costs are low for a primarily-intellectual component, but the potential development of an encompassing framework and the vital role of providing a relational connection between the other disparate components of this proposal indicate a high payoff.
	# A predictive, fully-integrated model of user workflow which encompasses low-level tasks, working spheres, communication chains, interruptions and multi-tasking. (OWNER: Andrew Bragdon)		# A predictive, fully-integrated model of user workflow which encompasses low-level tasks, working spheres, communication chains, interruptions and multi-tasking. (OWNER: Andrew Bragdon)
	##Traditionally, software design and usability testing is focused on low-level task performance. However, prior work (Gonzales, et al.) provides strong empirical evidence that users also work at a higher, ''working sphere'' level. Su, et al., develops a predictive model of task switching based on communication chains. Our model will specifically identify and predict key aspects of higher level information work behaviors, such as task switching. We will conduct initial exploratory studies to test specific instances of this high-level hypothesis. We will then use the refined model to identify specific predictions for the outcome of a formal, ecologically valid study involving a complex, non-trivial application.		##Traditionally, software design and usability testing is focused on low-level task performance. However, prior work (Gonzales, et al.) provides strong empirical evidence that users also work at a higher, ''working sphere'' level. Su, et al., develops a predictive model of task switching based on communication chains. Our model will specifically identify and predict key aspects of higher level information work behaviors, such as task switching. We will conduct initial exploratory studies to test specific instances of this high-level hypothesis. We will then use the refined model to identify specific predictions for the outcome of a formal, ecologically valid study involving a complex, non-trivial application.
	## Impact: Current information work systems are almost always designed around the individual task, and because they do not take into account the larger workflow context, these systems arguably do not properly model the way users work. By establishing a predictive model for user workflow based on individual task items, larger goal-oriented working spheres, multi-tasking behavior, and communication chains, developers will be able to design computing systems that properly model users and thus significantly increase worker productivity in the United States and around the world.		## Impact: Current information work systems are almost always designed around the individual task, and because they do not take into account the larger workflow context, these systems arguably do not properly model the way users work. By establishing a predictive model for user workflow based on individual task items, larger goal-oriented working spheres, multi-tasking behavior, and communication chains, developers will be able to design computing systems that properly model users and thus significantly increase worker productivity in the United States and around the world.
	## 3-week Feasibility Study: To ascertain the feasibility of this project we will conduct an initial pilot test to investigate the core idea: a predictive model of user workflow. We will spend 1 week studying the real workflow of several people through job shadowing. We will then create two systems designed to help a user accomplish some simple information work task. One system will be designed to take larger workflow into account (experimental group), while one will not (control group). In a synthetic environment, participants will perform a controlled series of tasks while receiving interruptions at controlled times. If the two groups perform roughly the same, then we will need to reassess this avenue of research. However, if the two groups perform differrently then our pilot test will have lent support to our approach and core hypothesis.
	## Risks/Costs: Risk will play an important factor in this research, and thus a core goal of our research agenda will be to manage this risk. The most effective way to do this will be to compartmentalize the risk by conducting empirical investigations - which will form the basis for the model - into the separate areas: low-level tasks, working spheres, communication chains, interruptions and multi-tasking in parallel. While one experiment may become bogged down in details, the others will be able to advance sufficiently to contribute to a strong core model, even if one or two facets encounter setbacks during the course of the research agenda. The primary cost drivers will be the preliminary empirical evaluations, the final system implementation, and the final experiments which will be designed to support the original hypothesis. The cost will span student support, both Ph.D. and Master's students, as well as full-time research staff. Projected cost: $1.5 million over three years.
	# A low-overhead mechanism for capturing event-based interactions between a user and a computer, including web-cam based eye tracking. (should we buy or find out about borrowing use of pupil tracker?) ''Should we include other methods of interaction here? Audio recognition seems to be the lowest cost. It would seem that a system that took into account head-tracking, audio, and fingertip or some other high-DOF input would provide a very strong foundation for a multi-modal HCI system. It may be more interesting to create a software toolkit that allows for synchronized usage of those inputs than a low-cost hardware setup for pupil-tracking. I agree pupil-tracking is useful, but developing something in-house may not be the strongest contribution we can make with our time.'' (Trevor)		# A low-overhead mechanism for capturing event-based interactions between a user and a computer, including web-cam based eye tracking. (should we buy or find out about borrowing use of pupil tracker?) ''Should we include other methods of interaction here? Audio recognition seems to be the lowest cost. It would seem that a system that took into account head-tracking, audio, and fingertip or some other high-DOF input would provide a very strong foundation for a multi-modal HCI system. It may be more interesting to create a software toolkit that allows for synchronized usage of those inputs than a low-cost hardware setup for pupil-tracking. I agree pupil-tracking is useful, but developing something in-house may not be the strongest contribution we can make with our time.'' (Trevor)
	## Accuracy study of eye tracking (2 cameras? double as an input device?)		## Accuracy study of eye tracking (2 cameras? double as an input device?)
	## ???		## ???

	# An extension to the CPM-GOMS model which accounts for dual-system theories of reasoning and cognition (OWNER - Gideon)		# An extension to the CPM-GOMS model which accounts for dual-system theories of reasoning and cognition (OWNER - Gideon)
	## Dual-process theories (Evans-2003-ITM) usually agree on the nature of high-level cognitive operations which are used in human reasoning. It is also argued that low-level processing, which is based on perceptual similarity, contiguity, and association, is determined by a set of autonomous subsystems. Depending on which system we use when performing cognitive operations, results can vary drastically. Our research project will contribute a set of guidelines to enhance classificatory decisions when implementing the CPM-GOMS model, resulting in more accurate predictions.		## Dual-process theories (Evans-2003-ITM) usually agree on the nature of high-level cognitive operations which are used in human reasoning. It is also argued that low-level processing, which is based on perceptual similarity, contiguity, and association, is determined by a set of autonomous subsystems. Depending on which system we use when performing cognitive operations, results can vary drastically. Our research project will contribute a set of guidelines to enhance classificatory decisions when implementing the CPM-GOMS model, resulting in more accurate predictions.
	## Impact: The impact of this contribution will be an improvement on a well-established model.		## Impact: The impact of this contribution will be an improvement on a well-established model.
	## 3-Week Feasibility Study: In the course of 30 hours, we may perform a hand-analysis of the empirical results in cognitive psychology in order to develop a set of approximately 10 guidelines or rules.
	## There is no risk for this contribution. Costs associated will be an extensive search of cognitive psychology literature for the past 25 years or so. Research on memory, reasoning, perception and more will be required in order to conduct a complete and accurate assessment.
	# A method for collecting data on user performance in cognitive, perceptual, and motor-control tasks that requires less monetary cost, allows for a greater number of samples, and measures user improvements over time. (Owner - Eric)
	##In order to reach a model of human cognitive and perceptual abilities when using computers, experimental analysis of human performance on these tasks will likely be necessary. User studies can often aid in this analysis, but they require much money, much time, and are subject to user fatigue. Alternately, we propose a web-based method for evaluating user performance in perceptual, motor-control, and cognitive tasks. The idea is to take a task would normally be measured through user studies in a laboratory and map this task into a simple online game. Somewhat similar work has been done by Popovic et. al. at the University of Washington, in that they took the task of folding proteins and mapped it into an online game ( http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11326188 ) with much success. We will analyze the value of this method by comparing it to similar tasks performed in laboratory experiments, both in terms of user performance and deployment costs.
	##Impact: By converting the task into a simple game, we hope to reduce the problem of user fatigue. Additionally, if the game is played on a social networking site, we are able to track basic information of users who perform the tasks and, more importantly, can identify returning users. Thus, we can track not only a user's performance, but also how they improve at a given task over time.
	##3-Week Feasibility Study: As a prototype, we can select one particular task to map into a simple online game. To check for feasibility, we need to ensure that the results we get from our proposed method are similar to the results found in laboratory settings. There are two possible effects we must test for: bias in results due to the mapping into a game, and bias in results due to the sample of subjects or any change caused by the web-based component. A simple test would be to first test users in a lab using traditional methods as a baseline, and then see how performance differs from that in laboratory tests using the game-based mapping. This will determine if the game appropriately measures the given task. Next, an online version of the game can be introduced, and performance can be compared with the laboratory settings. If performance is similar in all of these tests, we have found a method for measuring low-level tasks that allows for many samples and minimal cost.
	~~##Risks/Costs: There are no clear risks involved with this study. Potential costs would be those required for development of each experiment and for web hosting.~~

	==Specific Aims==		==Specific Aims==

Gideon Goldin: /* Gideon */

2009-04-16T20:39:39Z

Gideon

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 16 April 2009
Line 314:		Line 314:
	A meta-analysis of a representative subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that there is a beneficial distinction that can be made between two different systems of thought that together comprise cognition. These two systems are explicated in what is most commonly referred to as Dual-Process or Dual-System Theory. Just as the CPM-GOMS model makes a distinction between, for example, perception and cognition, we claim that an equally crucial distinction must be made between System 1 (low-level) and System 2 (high-level) cognition.		A meta-analysis of a representative subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that there is a beneficial distinction that can be made between two different systems of thought that together comprise cognition. These two systems are explicated in what is most commonly referred to as Dual-Process or Dual-System Theory. Just as the CPM-GOMS model makes a distinction between, for example, perception and cognition, we claim that an equally crucial distinction must be made between System 1 (low-level) and System 2 (high-level) cognition.

	Our analysis of 500 papers in these fields gave us the necessary foundation to elaborate on the cognitive module in the CPM architecture. We applied our new model to a scientific visualization task, and ~~compare~~ model predictions to those of the current CPM-GOMS model. Our analysis result not only in a more accurate assessment of time, but a finer-grained analysis of work flow, and a better understanding of parralellization in HCI.		Our analysis of 500 papers in these fields gave us the necessary foundation to elaborate on the cognitive module in the CPM architecture. We applied our new model to a scientific visualization task, and compared model predictions to those of the current CPM-GOMS model. Our analysis result not only in a more accurate assessment of time to completion, but a finer-grained analysis of work flow, and a better understanding of parralellization in HCI.

	=== Steven ===		=== Steven ===

Gideon Goldin: /* Gideon */

2009-04-16T20:32:05Z

Gideon

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 16 April 2009
Line 314:		Line 314:
	A meta-analysis of a representative subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that there is a beneficial distinction that can be made between two different systems of thought that together comprise cognition. These two systems are explicated in what is most commonly referred to as Dual-Process or Dual-System Theory. Just as the CPM-GOMS model makes a distinction between, for example, perception and cognition, we claim that an equally crucial distinction must be made between System 1 (low-level) and System 2 (high-level) cognition.		A meta-analysis of a representative subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that there is a beneficial distinction that can be made between two different systems of thought that together comprise cognition. These two systems are explicated in what is most commonly referred to as Dual-Process or Dual-System Theory. Just as the CPM-GOMS model makes a distinction between, for example, perception and cognition, we claim that an equally crucial distinction must be made between System 1 (low-level) and System 2 (high-level) cognition.

	Our analysis of 500 papers in these fields ~~gives~~ us the necessary foundation to elaborate on the cognitive module in the CPM architecture. We ~~apply~~ our new model to ~~the task of~~ a scientific visualization ~~software package~~, and compare model predictions to those of the current CPM-GOMS model. Our ~~results~~ result in not only a more accurate assessment of time, but a finer-grained analysis of ~~workflow~~, and a better understanding of parralellization in HCI ~~task modeling~~.		Our analysis of 500 papers in these fields gave us the necessary foundation to elaborate on the cognitive module in the CPM architecture. We applied our new model to a scientific visualization task, and compare model predictions to those of the current CPM-GOMS model. Our analysis result not only in a more accurate assessment of time, but a finer-grained analysis of work flow, and a better understanding of parralellization in HCI.

	=== Steven ===		=== Steven ===

Gideon Goldin: /* Gideon */

2009-04-16T20:23:08Z

Gideon

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 '''Extending CPM-GOMS: The need to dichotemize cognition'''
-=====Week 1:=====
+A meta-analysis of a representative subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that there is a beneficial distinction that can be made between two different systems of thought that together comprise cognition. These two systems are explicated in what is most commonly referred to as Dual-Process or Dual-System Theory. Just as the CPM-GOMS model makes a distinction between, for example, perception and cognition, we claim that an equally crucial distinction must be made between System 1 (low-level) and System 2 (high-level) cognition.
-A meta-analysis of a subset of the cognitive psychology and human-computer interaction literature presents evidence that interactions between humans and computers can be improved by taking into account the cognitive resources required for different types of tasks. It is well known that humans and computers excel at different types of tasks, but the field has not made an explicit effort to standardize a set of guidelines that interface designers may use when developing computer systems. For people and computers to function together in an optimized, complementary fashion, we still need a systematic way of distributing tasks amongst them.
+Our analysis of 500 papers in these fields gives us the necessary foundation to elaborate on the cognitive module in the CPM architecture. We apply our new model to the task of a scientific visualization software package, and compare model predictions to those of the current CPM-GOMS model. Our results result in not only a more accurate assessment of time, but a finer-grained analysis of workflow, and a better understanding of parralellization in HCI task modeling.
 === Steven ===

Gideon Goldin: /* Gideon */

2009-04-16T20:06:34Z

Gideon

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 16 April 2009
Line 310:		Line 310:
	=== Gideon ===		=== Gideon ===

	'''~~Preliminary Psychological Measures Show the Need for a Standardized Division of Cognitive Labor Across Humans and Computers~~'''		'''Extending CPM-GOMS: The need to dichotemize cognition'''

	=====Week 1:=====		=====Week 1:=====