ACT-R: A Theory of Higher Level Cognition and Its Relation to Visual Attention

The ACT-R system is a general system for modeling a wide range of higher level cognitive processes. Recently, it has been embellished with a theory of how its higher level processes interact with a visual interface. This includes a theory of how visual attention can move across the screen, encoding information into a form that can be processed by ACT-R. This system is applied to modeling several classic phenomena in the literature that depend on the speed and selectivity with which visual attention can move across a visual display. ACT-R is capable of interacting with the same computer screens that subjects do and, as such, is well suited to provide a model for tasks involving human-computer interaction. In this article, we discuss a demonstration of ACT-R's application to menu selection and show that the ACT-R theory makes unique predictions, without estimating any parameters, about the time to search a menu. These predictions are confirmed.

[1]  E. M. Jensen,et al.  The subitizing and counting of visually presented fields of dots. , 1950 .

[2]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The EPIC Architecture for Modeling Human Information-Processing and Performance: A Brief Introduction , 1994 .

[4]  Christian Lebiere,et al.  The dynamics of cognition: An ACT-R model of cognitive arithmetic , 1999, Kognitionswissenschaft.

[5]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search , 1988, Nature.

[7]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[8]  Emile Servan-Schreiber,et al.  The competitive chunking theory: models of perception, learning, and memory , 1991 .

[9]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Working Memory: Activation Limitations on Retrieval , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  M. D. Wiesmeyer.  An operator-based model of human covert visual attention , 1992 .

[13]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[14]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Rules of the Mind , 1993 .

[15]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[16]  S. Tipper,et al.  Short Report: Object-Centred Inhibition of Return of Visual Attention , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[17]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. , 1981 .

[18]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Short- and long-term memory retrieval: A comparison of the effects of information load and relatedness , 1987 .

[19]  R. Haber.  The impending demise of the icon: A critique of the concept of iconic storage in visual information processing , 1983, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  G. Mandler,et al.  Subitizing: an analysis of its component processes. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  S. Sternberg.  Memory-scanning: mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. , 1969, American scientist.

[23]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[24]  Erik Nilsen,et al.  PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR CONTROL IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION , 1991, SGCH.