Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMelvyn Hudson Modified over 8 years ago
1
Models of Human Performance CSCI 4800 Spring 2006 Kraemer
2
Objectives Introduce theory-based models for predicting human performance Introduce competence-based models for assessing cognitive activity Relate modelling to interactive systems design and evaluation
3
What are we trying to model?
4
Seven Stage Action Model [Norman, 1990] Form intention Develop plan Perform action Object in world Evaluate against goal Interpret object Perceive state of object GOAL OF PERSON
5
Describing Problem Solving Initial State Goal State All possible intervening states –Problem Space Path Constraints State Action Tree Means-ends analysis
6
Problem Solving A problem is something that doesn’t solve easily A problem doesn’t solve easily because: – you don’t have the necessary knowledge or, – you have misrepresented part of the problem If at first you don’t succeed, try something else Tackle one part of the problem and other parts may fall into place
7
Conclusion More than one solution Solution limited by boundary conditions Representation affects strategy Active involvement and testing
8
Functional Fixedness Strategy developed in one version of the problem Strategy might be inefficient X ) XXXX Convert numerals or just ‘see’ 4
9
Data-driven perception Activation of neural structures of sensory system by pattern of stimulation from environment
10
Theory-driven perception Perception driven by memories and expectations about incoming information.
11
KEYPOINT PERCEPTION involves a set of active processes that impose: STRUCTURE,STABILITY, and MEANING on the world
12
Visual Illusions Old Woman or Young girl? Rabbit or duck? http://www.genesishci.com/illusions2.htm
13
Interpretation Knowledge of what you are “looking at” can aid in interpretation JACKAN DJI LLW ENTU PTH EHILLTOFE TCHAPAILO FWATER Organisation of information is also useful
14
Story Grammars Analogy with sentence grammars –Building blocks and rules for combining Break story into propositions “Margie was holding tightly to the string of her beautiful new balloon. Suddenly a gust of wind caught it, and carried it into a tree. It hit a branch, and burst. Margie cried and cried.” “Margie was holding tightly to the string of her beautiful new balloon. Suddenly a gust of wind caught it, and carried it into a tree. It hit a branch, and burst. Margie cried and cried.”
15
Story Grammar Story Setting Episode Event Reaction Internal response Overt response Change Of state Event [sadness] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
16
Inferences Comprehension typically requires our active involvement in order to supply information that is not explicit in the text 1. Mary heard the ice-cream van coming 2. She remembered her pocket money 3. She rushed into the house.
17
Inference and Recall Thorndyke (1976): recall of sentences from ‘Mary’ story –85% correct sentence –58% correct inference – sentence not presented –6% incorrect inference
18
Mental Models Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) –Text processed to extract propositions, which are held in working memory; –When sufficient propositions in WM, then linking performed; –Relevance of propositions to linking proportional to recall; –Linking reveals ‘gist’
19
Semantic Networks ANIMAL Has Skin Can move Eats Breathes BIRD Can fly Has Wings Has feathers FISH Has fins Can swim Has gills CANARY Is Yellow Can sing Collins & Quillian, 1969
20
Levels and Reaction time A canary is a canary A canary is a bird A canary is an animal A canary is a fish A canary can sing A canary can fly A canary has skin A canary has gills Collins & Quillian, 1969 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 012False Levels of Sentences Mean Reaction Time (s) Property Category
21
Canaries Different times to verify the statements: –A canary is a bird –A canary can fly –A canary can sing Time proportional to movement through network
22
Scripts, Schema and Frames Schema = chunks of knowledge –Slots for information: fixed, default, optional Scripts = action sequences –Generalised event schema (Nelson, 1986) Frames = knowledge about the properties of things
23
Mental Models Partial Procedures, Functions or System? Memory or Reconstruction?
24
Concepts How do you know a chair is a chair? A chair has four legs…does it? A chair has a seat…does it?
25
Prototypes, Typical Features, and Exemplars Prototype ROSCH (1973): people do not use feature sets, but imagine a PROTOTYPE for an object Typical Features ROSCH & MERVIS (1975): people use a list of features, weighted in terms of CUE VALIDITY Exemplars SMITH & MEDIN (1981): people use an EXAMPLE to imagine an object
26
Representing Concepts BARSALOU (1983) –TAXONOMIC Categories that are well known and can be recalled consistently and reliably –E.g., Fruit, Furniture, Animals Used to generate overall representation of the world –AD HOC Categories that are invented for specific purpose –E.g., How to make friends, Moving house Used for goal-directed activity within specific event frames
27
Long Term Memory Procedural –Knowing how Declarative –Knowing that Episodic vs. Semantic –Personal events –Language and knowledge of world
28
Working Memory Limited Capacity 7 + 2 items (Miller, 1965) 4 + 2 chunks (Broadbent, 1972) Modality dependent capacity Strategies for coping with limitation Chunking Interference Activation of Long-term memory
29
Central executive Articulatory control process Auditory word presentation Visual word presentation Phonologica l store Visual Cache Inner scribe Baddeley’s (1986) Model of Working Memory
30
Slave Systems Articulatory loop –Memory Activation –Rehearsal capacity Word length effect and Rehearsal speed Visual cache –Visual patterns –Complexity of pattern, number of elements etc Inner scribe –Sequences of movement –Complexity of movement
31
Typing Eye-hand span related to expertise Expert = 9, novice = 1 Inter-key interval Expert = 100ms Strategy Hunt & Peck vs. Touch typing Keystroke Novice = highly variable keystroke time Novice = very slow on ‘unusual’ letters, e.g., X or Z
32
Salthouse (1986) Input –Text converted to chunks Parsing –Chunks decomposed to strings Translation –Strings into characters and linked to movements Execution –Key pressed
33
Rumelhart & Norman (1982) Perceptual processes –Perceive text, generate word schema Parsing –Compute codes for each letter Keypress schemata –Activate schema for letter-keypress Response activation –Press defined key through activation of appropriate hand / finger
34
Schematic of Rumelhart and Norman’s connectionist model of typing middle ring index little thumb Left hand middle index ring thumb little Right hand Response system activation j a zz jazz Word node, activated from Visual or auditory stimulus Keypress node, breaking Word into typed letters; Excites and inhibits nodes
35
Automaticity Norman and Shallice (1980) Fully automatic processing controlled by SCHEMATA Partially automatic processing controlled by either Contention Scheduling Supervisory Attentional System (SAS)
36
Supervisory Attentional System Model Perceptual System Supervisory Attentional System Effector System Contention scheduling Trigger database Control schema
37
Contention Scheduling Gear changing when driving involves many routine activities but is performed ‘automatically’ – without conscious awareness When routines clash, relative importance is used to determine which to perform – Contention Scheduling e.g., right foot on brake or clutch
38
SAS activation Driving on roundabouts in France –Inhibit ‘look right’; Activate ‘look left’ –SAS to over-ride habitual actions SAS active when: Danger, Choice of response, Novelty etc.
39
Attentional Slips and Lapses Habitual actions become automatic SAS inhibits habit Perserveration When SAS does not inhibit and habit proceeds Distraction Irrelevant objects attract attention Utilisation behaviour: patients with frontal lobe damage will reach for object close to hand even when told not to
40
Performance Operating Characteristics Resource-dependent trade-off between performance levels on two tasks Task A and Task B performed several times, with instructions to allocate more effort to one task or the other
41
Task Difficulty Data limited processes Performance related to quality of data and will not improve with more resource Resource limited processes Performance related to amount of resource invested in task and will improve with more resource
42
POC Data limited Resource limited Cost Task A Task B P M Task A Task B P M Cost
43
Why Model Performance? Building models can help develop theory –Models make assumptions explicit –Models force explanation Surrogate user: –Define ‘benchmarks’ –Evaluate conceptual designs –Make design assumptions explicit Rationale for design decisions
44
Why Model Performance? Human-computer interaction as Applied Science –Theory from cognitive sciences used as basis for design –General principles of perceptual, motor and cognitive activity –Development and testing of theory through models
45
Types of Model in HCI SystemProgramUserResearcherDesigner ProgramX UserXX Researche r XXXX DesignerXXX Whitefield, 1987
46
Task Models Researcher’s Model of User, in terms of tasks Describe typical activities Reduce activities to generic sequences Provide basis for design
47
Pros and Cons of Modelling PROS –Consistent description through (semi) formal representations –Set of ‘typical’ examples –Allows prediction / description of performance CONS –Selective (some things don’t fit into models) –Assumption of invariability –Misses creative, flexible, non-standard activity
48
Generic Model Process? Define system: {goals, activity, tasks, entities, parameters} Abstract to semantic level Define syntax / representation Define interaction Check for consistency and completeness Predict / describe performance Evaluate results Modify model
49
Device and Task Models
50
Device Models Buxton’s 3-state device model State 0 State 1 State 2
51
Application State 0 State 1 State 2 Out of range Pen on Pen off Button up Button down select drag
52
Different pointing devices DeviceState0State1State2 TouchscreenX PenXXX JoystickXX MouseXX
53
Conclusions Models abstract aspects of interaction –User, task, system Models play a variety of roles in design
54
Hierarchical Task Analysis Activity assumed to consist of TASKS performed in pursuit of GOALS Goals can be broken into SUBGOALS, which can be broken into tasks Hierarchy (Tree) description
55
Hierarchical Task Description
56
The “Analysis” comes from plans PLANS = conditions for combining tasks Fixed Sequence –P0: 1 > 2 > exit Contingent Fixed Sequence –P1: 1 > when state X achieved > 2 > exit –P1.1: 1.1 > 1.2 > wait for X time > 1.3 > exit Decision –P2: 1 > 2 > If condition X then 3, elseif condition Y then 4 > 5 > exit
57
Reporting HTA can be constructed using Post-it notes on a large space (this makes it easy to edit and also encourages participation) HTA can be difficult to present in a succinct printed form (it might be useful to take a photograph of the Post-it notes) Typically a Tabular format is used: Task number TaskPlanComments
58
Redesigning the Interface to a medical imaging system
59
Original Design Menu driven Menus accessed by first letter of command Menus arranged in hierarchy
60
Problems with original design Lack of consistency D = DOS commands; Delete; Data file; Date Hidden hierarchy Only ‘experts’ could use Inappropriate defaults Setting up a scan required ‘correction’ of default settings three or four times
61
Initial design activity Observation of non-technology work Cytogeneticists inspecting chromosomes Developed model of task Hierarchical task analysis Developed design principles, e.g., Cytogeneticists as ‘picture people’ Task flow Task mapping
62
Task Model Work flows between specific activities Patient details Administration Set up Reporting Microscope Cell sample Analysis
63
First “prototype” Layout related to task model ‘Sketch’ very simple Annotations show modifications
64
Second prototype Refined layout ‘Prototype’ using HyperCard Initial user trials compared this with a mock-up of the original design
65
Final Product Picture taken from company brochure Initial concepts retained Further modifications possible
66
Predicting Transaction Time
67
Predicting Performance Time Time and error are ‘standard’ measures of human performance Predict transaction time for comparative evaluation Approximations of human performance
68
Unit Times From task model, define sequence of tasks to achieve a specific goal For each task, define ‘average time’
69
Quick Exercise Draw two parallel lines about 4cm apart and about 10cm long Draw, as quickly as possible, a zig-zag line for 5 seconds Count the number of lines and the number of times you have crossed the parallel lines
70
Predicted result About 70 lines About 20 cross-overs
71
Why this prediction? Movement speed limited by biomechanical constraints –Motor subsystem change direction @ 70ms –So: 5000 / 70 = 71 oscillations Cognitive / Perceptual system cycles: –Perceptual @ 70ms –Cognitive @ 100ms –Correction takes 70+70+100 = 240ms –5000/240 = 21
72
Fitts’ Law Paul Fitts 1954 Information-theoretic account of simple movements Define the number of ‘bits’ processed in performing a given task
73
Fitts’ Tapping Task W a
74
Fitts’ Law Movement Time = a + b (log 2 2A/W) Hits 60 40 20 0 Log 2 (2A/W) 1.A = 62, W = 15 2.A = 112, W = 7 3.A = 112, W = 21 1 = 5.3 2 = 4.5 3 = 3.2 54 43 21 a b a = 10 b = 27.5
75
Alternate Versions MT = a + b log 2 (2A/W) MT = b log 2 (A/W + 0.5) MT = a + b log 2 (A/W/+1)
76
a and b are “constants” Data derived from plot Data as predictors? ab Mouse1030108-10796392223 Trackball75282300347
77
Potential Problems Data-fitter rather than ‘law’ ‘Generic value’: a+b = 100 Variable predictive power for devices? –From ‘mouse data’ we get: (assume A = 5 and W = 10) log 2 (2A/W) 0.3 339ms, 150.5ms and 34.9ms (!!)
78
Hick – Hyman Law William Hick 1952 Selection time, from a set of items, is proportional to the number of items T = k log 2 (n+1), Where k = a constant (intercept+slope) Approximately 150ms added to T for each item
79
Example of Hick-Hyman Law Search Time (s) 4 3 2 1 0 234 5 6 7 8 10 12 words numbers Landauer and Nachbar, 1985
80
Keystroke Level Models Developed from 1950s ergonomics Human information processor as linear executor of specified tasks Unit-tasks have defined times Prediction = summing of times for sequence of unit-tasks
81
Building a KLM Develop task model Define task sequence Assign unit-times to tasks Sum times
82
Example: cut and paste Task Model: Select line – Cut – Select insertion point – paste Task One: select line move cursor to start of line press (hold) button drag cursor to end of line release button
83
Times for Movement H: homing, e.g., hand from keyboard to mouse –Range: 214ms – 400ms –Average: 320ms P: pointing, e.g., move cursor using mouse –Range: defined by Fitts’ Law –Average: 1100ms B: button pressing, e.g., hitting key on keyboard –Range: 80ms – 700ms –Average: 200ms
84
Times for Cognition / Perception M: mental operation –Range: 990ms – 1760ms –Average: 1350ms A: switch attention between parts of display –Average: 320ms R: recognition of items –Range: 314ms – 1800ms –Average: 340ms Perceive change: –Range: 50 – 300ms –Average: 100ms
85
Rules for Summing Times How to handle multiple Mental units: –M before Ks in new argument strings –M at start of ‘cognitive unit’ –M before Ps that select commands –Delete M if K redundant terminator
86
Alternative What if we use ‘accelerated scrolling’ on the cursor keys? –Press key and read scrolling numbers –Release key at or near number –Select correct number MH Pe PP’P
87
Critical Path Models Used in project management Map dependencies between tasks in a project –Task X is dependent on task Y, if it is necessary to wait until the end of task Y until task X can commence
88
Procedure Construct task model, taking into account dependencies Assign times to tasks Calculate critical path and transaction time –Run forward pass –Run backward pass
89
Example MH R PP’P M = 1.35 H = 0.32 P = 0.2 R = 0.34 1 234 M 1.35 H 0.32 P 0.2 5 P’ 0.2 R 0.34 6 P 0.2
90
Critical Path Table ActivityDurationESTLSTEFTLFTFloat M1.35001.351.350 H0.321.351.351.671.670 P0.21.671.671.871.870 R0.341.671.732.012.070.06 P’0.22.072.072.272.270 P0.22.272.272.472.470
91
Comparison ‘Summing of times’ result: –2.61s ‘Critical path’ result: –2.47s R allowed to ‘float’
92
Other time-based models Task-network models –MicroSAINT –Unit-times and probability of transition Prompt 50ms Speak word [300 9]ms System response [1000 30]ms p 1-p
93
Models of Competence
94
Performance vs. Competence Performance Models –Make statements and predictions about the time, effort or likelihood of error when performing specific tasks; Competence Models –Make statements about what a given user knows and how this knowledge might be organised.
95
Sequence vs. Process vs. Grammar Sequence Models –Define activity simply in terms of sequences of operations that can be quantified Process Models –Simple model of mental activity but define the steps needed to perform tasks Grammatical Models –Model required knowledge in terms of ‘sentences’
96
Process Models Production systems GOMS
97
Production Systems Rules = (Procedural) Knowledge Working memory = state of the world Control strategies = way of applying knowledge
98
Production Systems Architecture of a production system: Rule base Working Memory Interpreter
99
The Problem of Control Rules are useless without a useful way to apply them Need a consistent, reliable, useful way to control the way rules are applied Different architectures / systems use different control strategies to produce different results
100
Forward Chaining A C A B C A B If not C then GOAL If A then B If A and B then not C If not C then GOAL If A then B
101
Backward Chaining A C A B C A B If A then B If A and B then not C Need: not C Need B If not C then GOAL Need GOAL If A and B then not C If not C then GOAL If A then B
102
Production Systems A simple metaphor Docks Ships
103
Production Systems Ships must fit the correct dock When one ship is docked, another can be launched
104
Production Systems
106
Production Rules IF condition THEN action e.g., IF ship is docked And free-floating ships THEN launch ship IF dock is free And Ship matches THEN dock ship
107
The Parsimonious Production Systems Rule Notation On any cycle, any rule whose conditions are currently satisfied will fire Rules must be written so that a single rule will not fire repeatedly Only one rule will fire on a cycle All procedural knowledge is explicit in these rules rather than being explicit in the interpreter
108
Worked Example: The Tower of Hanoi 3 2 1 A B C 4 5
109
Possible Steps 1 Disc 1 from a to c Disc 2 from a to b Disc 1 from c to a Disc 3 from a to c Disc 2 from b to c Disc 1 from a to c
110
Worked Example: The Tower of Hanoi 3 2 1 A B C 4 5
111
Possible Steps 2 Disc 4 from a to b Disc 1 from c to b Disc 2 from c to a Disc 1 from b to a Disc 2 from a to b Disc 3 from a to b
112
Worked Example: The Tower of Hanoi 3 2 1 A B C 4 5
113
Possible Steps 3 Disc 5 from a to c Disc 1 from b to a Disc 2 from b to c Disc 1 from a to c Disc 3 from b to a Disc 1 from c to b Disc 2 from c to a Disc 4 from b to c Disc 1 from a to c Disc 2 from a to b Disc 1 from c to b Disc 3 from a to c Disc 1 from b to a Disc 2 from b to c Disc 1 from a to c
114
Simon’s (1975) goal-recursive logic To get the 5-tower to Peg C, get the 4-tower to Peg B, then move The 5-disc to Peg C, then move the 4-tower to Peg C To get the 4-tower to Peg B, get the 3-tower to Peg C, then move The 4-disc to Peg B, then move the 3-tower to Peg B To get the 3-tower to Peg C, get the 2-tower to Peg B, then move The 3-disc to Peg C, then move the 2-tower to Peg C, To get the 2-tower to Peg B, move the 1-disc to Peg C, then move The 2-disc to Peg B, then move the 1-disc to Peg A
115
Production Rule 1 SUBGOAL_DISCS IFthe goal is to achieve a particular configuration of discs AndDi is on Px but should go to Py in the configuration AndDi is the largest disc out of place AndDj is on Py And Dj is smaller than Di AndPz is clear OR has a disc larger than Dj THENset a subgoal to move the Dj tower to Pz and Di to Py
116
Production Rule 2 SUBGOAL_MOVE_DISC IFthe goal is to achieve a particular configuration of discs AndDi is on Px but should go to Py in the configuration AndDi is the largest disc out of place AndPy is clear THENmove Di to Py
117
Goals Operators Method Selection Card, Moran and Newell, 1983 Human activity modelled by Model Human Processor Activity defined by GOALS Goals held in ‘Stack’ Goals ‘pushed’ onto stack Goals ‘popped’ from stack
118
Goals Symbolic structures to define desired state of affairs and methods to achieve this state of affairs GOAL: EDIT-MANUSCRIPTtop level goal GOAL: EDIT-UNIT-TASKspecific sub goal GOAL: ACQUIRE UNIT-TASKget next step GOAL: EXECUTE UNIT-TASK do next step GOAL: LOCATION-LINEspecific step
119
Operators Elementary perceptual, motor or cognitive acts needed to achieve subgoals Get-next-lineUse-cursor-arrow-methodUse-mouse-method
120
Methods Descriptions of procedures for achieving goals Conditional upon contents of working memory and state of task GOAL: ACQUIRE-UNIT-TASK GET-NEXT-PAGEif at end of manuscript GET-NEXT-TASK
121
Selection Choose between competing Methods, if more than one GOAL:EXECUTE-UNIT-TASKGOAL:LOCATE-LINE [select:if hands on keyboard and less than 5 lines to move USE CURSOR KEYS else USE MOUSE]
122
Example Withdraw cash from ATM –Construct task model –Define production rules
123
Task Model Method for goal: Obtain cash from ATM Step1: access ATM Step2: select ‘cash’ option Step3: indicate amount Step4: retrieve cash and card Step5: end task
124
Production Rules ((GOAL: USE ATM TO OBTAIN CASH) ADD-UNIT-TASK (access ATM) ADD-WM-UNIT-TASK (access ATM) ADD-TASK-STEP (insert card in slot) SEND-TO-MOTOR(place card in slot) SEND-TO-MOTOR (eyes to slot) SEND-TO-PERCEPTUAL (check card in) ADD (WM performing card insertion) ADD-TASK-STEP (check card insertion) DELETE-UNIT-TASK (access ATM) ADD-UNIT-TASK (enter PIN)
125
Problems with GOMS Assumes ‘error-free’ performance –Even experts make mistakes MHP gross simplifies human information processing Producing a task model of non- existent products is difficult
126
Task Action Grammar GOMS assumes ‘expert’ knows operators and methods for tasks TAG assumes ‘expert’ knows simple tasks, i.e., tasks that can be performed without problem-solving
127
TAG and competence Competence –Defines what an ‘ideal’ user would know TAG relies on ‘world knowledge’ –up vs down –left vs right –forward vs backward
128
Task-action Grammar Grammar relates simple tasks to actions Generic rule schema covering combinations of simple tasks
129
TAG A ‘grammar’ –maps Simple tasks –Onto Actions –To form an interaction language –To investigate consistency
130
Consistency Syntactic: use of expressions Lexical: use of symbols Semantic-syntactic alignment: order of terms Semantic: principle of completeness
131
Procedure –Step 1: Write out commands and their structures –Step 2: Determine in commands have consistent structure –Step 3: Place command items into variable/feature relationship –Step 4: Generalise commands by separating into task features, simple tasks, task-action rule schema –Step 5: Expand parts of task into primitives –Step 6: Check to ensure all names are unique
132
Example Setting up a recording on a video- cassette recorder (VCR) Assume that all controls via front panel and that the user can only use the up and down arrows
133
Feature list [for a VCR] PropertyDate, Channel, Start, End Valuenumber FrequencyDaily, Weekly Recordon, off
134
Simple tasks SetDate [Property = Date, Value = US#, Frequency = Daily] SetDate [Property = Date, Value = US#, Frequency = Weekly] SetProg[Property =Prog, Value = US#] SetStart[Property = start, Value = US#, Record = on] SetEnd[Property = start, Value = US#, Record = off]
135
Rule Schema 1. Task[Property = US#, Value] SetValue [Value] 2. Task[Property = Date, Value, Frequency = US#] SetValue [Value] + press “ | ” until Frequency = US# 3. Task[Property = Start, Value] SetValue [Value] + press “Rec” 4. SetValue [Value = US#] press “ | ” until Value = US# 5. SetValue[Value = US#] use “ | ” until Value = US#
136
Architectures for Cognition
137
Why Cognitive Architecture? Computers architectures: –Specify components and their connections –Define functions and processes Cognitive Architectures could be seen as the logical conclusion of the ‘human-brain-as-computer’ hypothesis
138
Why do this? Philosophy: Provide a unified understanding of the mind Psychology: Account for experimental data Education: Provide cognitive models for intelligent tutoring systems and other learning environments Human Computer Interaction: Evaluate artifacts and help in their design Computer Generated Forces: Provide cognitive agents to inhabit training environments and games Neuroscience: Provide a framework for interpreting data from brain imaging
139
General Requirements Integration of cognition, perception, and action Robust behavior in the face of error, the unexpected, and the unknown Ability to run in real time Ability to Learn Prediction of human behavior and performance
140
Architectures Model Human Processor (MHP) –Card, Moran and Newell (1983) ACT-R –Anderson (1993) EPIC –Meyer and Kieras (1997) SOAR –Laird, Rosenbloom and Newell (1987)
141
Model Human Processor Three interacting subsystems: Perceptual Auditory image store Visual image store Cognitive Working memory Long-term memory Motor
142
Parameters of MHP CapacityDecayCycle Long-term memory XX Working memory 2.5 – 9 chunks 5 – 226s Auditory image store 7 – 17 letters 70- 1000ms 70- 1000ms Visual image store 4.4-6.2 letters 900- 3500ms Cognitive processor 50-200ms Motor processor 25-170ms Perceptual processor 30-100ms
143
Average data for MHP Long-term memory:? Working memory: 3 – 7 chunks, 7s Auditory image store: 17 letters, 200ms Visual image store: 5 letters, 1500ms Cognitive processor: 100ms Perceptual processor: 70ms Motor processor: 70ms
144
Conclusions Simple description of cognition Uses ‘standard times’ for prediction Uses production rules for defining and combining tasks (with GOMS formalism)
145
Adaptive Control of Thought, Rational (ACT-R) http://act.psy.cmu.edu http://act.psy.cmu.edu
146
Adaptive Control of Thought, Rational (ACT-R) ACT-R symbolic aspect realised over subsymbolic mechanism Symbolic aspect in two parts: –Production memory –Symbolic memory (declarative memory) Theory of rational analysis
147
Theory of Rational Analysis Evidence-based assumptions about environment (probabilities) Deriving optimal strategies (Bayesian) Assuming that optimal strategies reflect human cognition (either what it actually does or what it probably ought to do)
148
Notions of Memory Procedural –Knowing how –Described in ACT by Production Rules Declarative –Knowing that –Described in ACT by ‘chunks’ Goal Stack –A sort of ‘working memory’ –Holds chunks (goals) –Top goal pushed (like GOMS) –Writeable
149
Production Rules Knowing how to do X –Production rule = set of conditions and an action IF it is raining And you wish to go out THEN pick up your umbrella
150
(Very simple) ACT Network of propositions Production rules selected via pattern matching. Production rules coordinate retrieval of chunks from symbolic memory and link to environment. If information in working memory matches production rule condition, then fire production rule
151
ACT* Declarative memory Procedural memory Working memory Retrieval StorageMatch Execution OUTSIDE WORLD EncodingPerformance
152
Addition-Fact six U (4); T (1); H (0) eight addend1sum addend2 Knowledge Representation 16 18 + _____ 34 _____ 1 Goal buffer: add numbers in right-most column Visual buffer: 6, 8 Retrieval buffer: 14
153
Symbolic / Subsymbolic levels Symbolic level –Information as chunks in declarative memory, and represented as propositions –Rules as productions in procedural memory Subsymbolic level –Chunks given parameters which are used to determine the probability that the chunk is needed –Base-level activation (relevance) –Context activation (association strengths)
154
Conflict resolution Order production rules by preference Select top rule in list Preference defined by: –Probability that rule will lead to goal –Time associated with rule –Likely cost of reaching goal when using sequence involving this rule
155
Example Activity: Find target and then use mouse to select target: Hunt_Feature IF goal = find target with feature F AND there is object X on screen THEN move attention to object X Found_target IF goal = find target with feature F AND target with F in location L THEN move mouse to L and click
156
Example Model reaction time to target –Assume switch attention linearly increases with each new position –Assume probability of feature X in location y = 0.53 –Assume switch attention = 185ms Therefore, reaction time = 185 X 0.53 = 98ms per position Empirical data has RT of 103ms per position
157
Example Assume target in field of distractors –P = 0.42 –Therefore, 185 x.42 = 78ms per position Empirical data = 80ms per position
158
Learning Symbolic level –Learning defined by adding new chunks and productions Subsymbolic level –Adjustment of parameters based on experience
159
Conclusions ACT uses simple production system ACT provides some quantitative prediction of performance Rationality = optimal adaptation to environment
160
Executive Process Interactive Control (EPIC) ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras ftp://ftp.eecs.umich.edu/people/kieras
161
Executive Process Interactive Control (EPIC) Focus on multiple task performance Cognitive Processor runs production rules and interacts with perceptual and motor processors
162
EPIC parameters FIXED –Connections and mechanisms –Time parameters –Feature sets for motor processors –Task-specific production rules and perceptual encoding types FREE –Production rules for tasks –Unique perceptual and motor processors –Task instance set –Simulated task environment
163
EPIC Task environment Auditory Visual Speech Manual DISPLAY PERCEPTUAL PROCESSORS Auditory Visual Speech Manual Long-term memory Production memory Production Rule interpreter Working memory Tactile
164
Production Memory Perceptual processors controlled by production rules Production Rules held in Production Memory Production Rule Interpreter applies rules to perceptual processes
165
Working Memory Limited capacity (or duration of 4s) and holds current production rules Cognitive processor updates every 50ms On update, perceptual input, item from production memory, and next action held in working memory
166
Resolving Conflict Production rules applied to executive tasks to handle resource conflict and scheduling Conflict dealt with in production rule specification –Lockout –Interleaving –Strategic response deferent
167
Example Task one Stimulus one Perceptual process Cognitive process Response selection Memory process Response one Task two Stimulus two Perceptual process Cognitive process Response selection Memory process Response two Executive process Move eye to S2 Enable task1 + task 2 Wait for task1 complete Task1end Task2 permission Trial end
168
Conclusions Modular structure supports parallelism EPIC does not have a goal stack and does not assume sequential firing of goals Goals can be handled in parallel (provided there is no resource conflict) Does not support learning
169
States, Operators, And Reasoning (SOAR) http://www.isi.edu/soar/soar.html http://www.isi.edu/soar/soar.html
170
States, Operators, And Reasoning (SOAR) Sequel of General Problem Solver (Newell and Simon, 1960) SOAR seeks to apply operators to states within a problem space to achieve a goal. SOAR assumes that actor uses all available knowledge in problem-solving
171
Soar as a Unified Theory of Cognition Intelligence = problem solving + learning Cognition seen as search in problem spaces All knowledge is encoded as productions a single type of knowledge All learning is done by chunking a single type of learning
172
Young, R.M., Ritter, F., Jones, G. 1998 "Online Psychological Soar Tutorial" available at: http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/ Frank.Ritter/pst/pst-tutorial.html http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/ Frank.Ritter/pst/pst-tutorial.html http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/ Frank.Ritter/pst/pst-tutorial.html
173
SOAR Activity Operators: Transform a state via some action State: A representation of possible stages of progress in the problem Problem space: States and operators that can be used to achieve a goal. Goal: Some desired situation.
174
SOAR Activity Problem solving = applying an Operator to a State in order to move through a Problem Space to reach a Goal. Problem solving = applying an Operator to a State in order to move through a Problem Space to reach a Goal. Impasse = Where an Operator cannot be applied to a State, and so it is not possible to move forward in the Problem Space. This becomes a new problem to be solved. Soar can learn by storing solutions to past problems as chunks and applying them when it encounters the same problem again
175
SOAR Architecture Chunking mechanism Production memory Pattern Action Decision procedure Working memory Manager Preferences Objects Conflict stack Working memory
176
Explanation Working Memory –Data for current activity, organized into objects Production Memory –Contains production rules Chunking mechanism –Collapses successful sequences of operators into chunks for re-use
177
3 levels in soar Symbolic – the programming level –Rules programmed into Soar that match circumstances and perform specific actions Problem space – states & goals –The set of goals, states, operators, and context. Knowledge – embodied in the rules –The knowledge of how to act on the problem/world, how to choose between different operators, and any learned chunks from previous problem solving
178
How does it work? A problem is encoded as a current state and a desired state (goal) Operators are applied to move from one state to another There is success if the desired state matches the current state Operators are proposed by productions, with preferences biasing choices in specific circumstances Productions fire in parallel
179
Impasses If no operator is proposed, or if there is a tie between operators, or if Soar does not know what to do with an operator, there is an impasse When there are impasses, Soar sets a new goal (resolve the impasse) and creates a new state Impasses may be stacked When one impasse is solved, Soar pops up to the previous goal
180
Learning Learning occurs by chunking the conditions and the actions of the impasses that have been resolved Chunks can immediately used in further problem-solving behaviour
181
The Switchyard video
182
Conclusions It may be too "unified" –Single learning mechanism –Single knowledge representation –Uniform problem state It does not take neuropsychological evidence into account (cf. ACT-R) There may be non-symbolic intelligence, e.g. neural nets etc not abstractable to the symbolic level
183
Comparison of Architectures ACT-REPICSOAR TypeHybridSymbolicSymbolic Theory Rational analysis Embedded cognition Problem solving Basis Cog. Psy. HCIAI LTM Productions; facts Productions WM Goal stack Working memory; sensory stores Working memory LearningYesNoYes
184
The Role of Models in Design
185
User Models in Design Benchmarking Human Virtual Machines Evaluation of concepts Comparison of concepts Analytical prototyping
186
Benchmarking What times can users expect to take to perform task –Training criteria –Evaluation criteria (under ISO9241) –Product comparison
187
Human Virtual Machine How might the user perform? –Make assumptions explicit –Contrast views
188
Evaluation of Concepts Which design could lead to better performance? –Compare concepts using models prior to building prototype –Use performance of existing product as benchmark
189
Reliability of Models Agreement of predictions with observations Agreement of predictions by different analysts Agreement of model with theory
190
Comparison with Theory Approximation of human information processing Assumes linear, error-free performance Assumes strict following of ‘correct’ procedure Assumes only way correct procedure Assumes actions can be timed
191
KLM Validity Predicted values lie within 20% of observed values
192
Comparison of KLM predicted with times from user trials Total time (s) 25 20 15 10 1 2 3 4 5 67 Trial number CUI: P = 15.84s mean = 15.37s Error = 2.9% GUI: P = 11.05s mean = 8.64s Error = 22%
193
Inter / Intra-rater Reliability Inter-rater: –Correlation of several analysts –= 0.754 Intra-rater: –Correlation for same analysts on several occasions –=0.916 Validity: –correlation with actual performance –= 0.769 Stanton and Young, 1992
194
How compare single data points? Models typically produce a single prediction How can one value be compared against a set of data? How can a null hypothesis be proved?
195
Liao and Milgram (1991) A-D- *sd A-D A-D+ *sd A A+D- *sd A+D A+D+ *sd D
196
Defining terms A = Actual values, with observed standard deviation (sd) D = Derived values = 5% (P < 0.05 to reduce Type I error) = 20% (P<0.2 for Type II error)
197
Acceptance Criteria Accept Ho if: A-D+ *sd < D< A+D- *sd Reject Ho if: D < A-D- *sd Reject Ho if: D > A-D+ *sd
198
Analytical Prototyping Functional analysis Define features and functions Development of design concepts, e.g., sketches and storyboards Scenario-based analysis How people pursue defined goals State-based descriptions Structural analysis Predictive evaluation Testing to destruction
199
Analytical Prototyping Functional analysis Scenario-based analysis Structural analysis
200
Rewritable Routines Mental models –Imprecise, incomplete, inconsistent Partial representations of product and procedure for achieving subgoal Knowledge recruited in response to system image
201
Simple Architecture Current State Action to change machine state Rewritable Routines Goal State Possible States Relevant State Next State
202
Global Prototypical Routines Stereotyped Stimulus-Response compatibilities Generalisable product knowledge
203
State-specific Routines Interpretation of system image –Feature evolution Expectation of procedural steps Situated / Opportunistic planning
204
Describing Interaction State-space diagrams Indication of system image Indication of user action Prediction of performance
205
State-space Diagram 0 Waiting for: Raise lid Waiting for: Play Mode Waiting for: Enter Waiting for: Skip forward Waiting for: Skip back Waiting for: Play Waiting for: Stop Waiting for: Off Task: Press ‘Play’ Time: 200ms Error: 0.0004 State 1 State number System image Waiting for… Transitions
206
Defining Parameters Activity (times) Error P(novice ) P(expert) Recall Plan (1380ms) Wrong plan 0.260.003 Select (360ms) Select wrong item 0.020.0004 Press (200ms) Fail to press 0.00040.0004 Read (180ms) Misinterpret0.160.09
207
Developing Models P=0.997 P=0.74 P=0.003 P=0.26 P=0.9996 P=0.0004 P=1 Recall plan: 1380ms Press play: 200ms Press Playmode: 200ms Wrong plan: 1380ms Cycle through menu: 800ms Switch off: 300ms Press Enter: 0ms Press Other Key: 200ms Press Playmode: 200ms Press Play: 0ms Start: 0ms
208
Results
209
What is the point? Are these models useful to designers? Are these models useful to theorists?
210
Task Models - problems Task models take time to develop –They may not have high inter-rater reliability –They cannot deal easily with parallel tasks –They ignore social factors
211
Task Models - benefits Models are abstractions – you always leave something out The process of creating a task model might outweigh the problems Task models highlight task sequences and can be used to define metrics
212
Task Models for Theorists Task models are engineering approximations –Do they actually describe how human information processing works? Do they need to? –Do they describe cognitive operations, or just actions?
213
Some Background Reading Dix, A et al., 1998, Human-Computer Interaction (chapters 6 and 7) London: Prentice Hall Anderson, J.R., 1983, The Architecture of Cognition, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press Card, S.K. et al., 1983, The Psychology of Human- Computer Interaction, Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Carroll, J., 2003, HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: towards a multidisciplinary science, (chapters 1, 3, 4, 5) San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.