Process monitoring and configural display design: A neuroimaging study

In this paper an investigation is reported of neural imaging of the electrocortical activity involved when users monitored dynamic visual interfaces for process failures. For six different visual displays, the form of the display and the directness of mapping between process parameters and visual form were varied. Performance data showed best results with a configural display that mapped the process parameter most important for failure detection to a simple visual property of the display geometry. In this display condition, performance variability was lowest of all conditions and self-reports of users' monitoring strategy revealed the least variability among users. Neuroimaging results for this display condition revealed that changes in electrocortical activity were most consistent between subjects compared with other displays, while still remaining small in absolute terms. These results are interpreted in the light of previous findings in ecological psychology and control of dynamic systems and implications for their use in dynamic visual display design are outlined.

[1]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Advancing Performance Measurement in Cognitive Engineering: The Abstraction Hierarchy as a Framework for Dynamical Systems Analysis , 1998 .

[2]  G. Santucci,et al.  [Visual displays]. , 1981, L'Annee therapeutique et clinique en ophtalmologie.

[3]  W H Warren,et al.  Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Richard B. Silberstein,et al.  Steady state visually evoked potential, brain resonances and cognitive processes , 2000 .

[5]  R. Silberstein,et al.  Steady-state visually evoked potential topography during the Wisconsin card sorting test. , 1995, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[6]  G. Pfurtscheller,et al.  Topographical display and interpretation of event-related desynchronization during a visual-verbal task , 2005, Brain Topography.

[7]  D. Regan.  Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[8]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological Interface Design: Progress and Challenges , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Dianne E. Howie,et al.  Measures of operator performance in complex, dynamic microworlds: advancing the state of the art. , 1998, Ergonomics.

[10]  R. B. Silberstein,et al.  Steady-state visually evoked potential topography and mental rotation , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[11]  J M Flach,et al.  The complex role of perceptual organization in visual display design theory. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[12]  Y. Lacasse,et al.  From the authors , 2005, European Respiratory Journal.

[13]  Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.  Emergent Features in Visual Display Design for Two Types of Failure Detection Tasks , 1991, Human factors.

[14]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Combining steady‐state visual evoked potentials and f MRI to localize brain activity during selective attention , 1997, Human brain mapping.

[15]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Electrical and magnetic readings of mental functions , 1997 .

[16]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Designing Displays Under Ecological Interface Design: Towards Operationalizing Semantic Mapping , 1998 .

[17]  M. Posner,et al.  Images of mind , 1994 .

[18]  E. Hutchins.  Cognition in the wild , 1995 .

[19]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[20]  R. B. Silberstein,et al.  Steady State Visually Evoked Potential Correlates of Auditory Hallucinations in Schizophrenia , 1998, NeuroImage.

[21]  R. B. Silberstein,et al.  Artifact sensitivity of Fourier-based analysis of steady-state visually evoked potential , 1993, Biological Psychology.

[22]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Inducing effective operator control through ecological interface design , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  K B Bennett,et al.  Graphical Displays: Implications for Divided Attention, Focused Attention, and Problem Solving , 1992, Human factors.

[24]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Neuroergonomics: Research and practice , 2003 .

[25]  Mary Anne Buttigieg,et al.  Object Displays Do Not Always Support Better Integrated Task Performance , 1989 .

[26]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[27]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[28]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[29]  Joseph Ciorciari,et al.  Steady-State Visually Evoked Potential topography associated with a visual vigilance task , 2005, Brain Topography.

[30]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Making the most of ecological interface design: the role of cognitive style , 1998, Proceedings Fourth Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems.

[31]  C. Wickens.  Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[32]  Olaf Oehme,et al.  Visual displays , 2002 .

[33]  S. Runeson.  On the possibility of "smart" perceptual mechanisms. , 1977, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[34]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[35]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Testing the Impact of Instrumentation Location and Reliability on Ecological Interface Design: Fault Diagnosis Performance , 2000 .

[36]  Joseph Ciorciari,et al.  Steady state visually evoked scalp topography in a visual vigilance task: effects of eye movements , 1991 .

[37]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Supporting operator problem solving through ecological interface design , 1995, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..