Evaluating Systematic Error Predictions in a Routine Procedural Task

Systematic errors in routine procedural tasks present an important problem for psychologists who study interactions between humans and technological systems. This paper details an experiment designed to examine systematic error patterns and evaluate error predictions made by a notable psychological theory and industry-standard usability tools when performing multiple routine procedural tasks on a single highly visual interface. Participants completed three dynamic, computer-based routine procedural tasks involving execution of multiple steps. Differences were found in error frequencies at particular steps between the three tasks, a result that is consistent with predictions derived from Altmann and Trafton's (2002) activation-based model of memory for goals, but contrary to those of usability guidelines. Error patterns were reminiscent of several familiar types of systematic error.

[1]  Wayne D. Gray.  The nature and processing of errors in interactive behavior , 2000, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  D. Norman.  Categorization of action slips. , 1981 .

[3]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Human error identification in human-computer interaction , 2002 .

[4]  Alex Kirlik,et al.  Modes in Human-Machine Systems: Constructs, Representation, and Classification , 1999 .

[5]  P. Barnard,et al.  How would your favourite user model cope with these scenarios? , 1989, SGCH.

[6]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Task Structure and Postcompletion Error in the Execution of a Routine Procedure , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Barry Kirwan,et al.  A Guide To Task Analysis: The Task Analysis Working Group , 1992 .

[8]  Harold Thimbleby,et al.  Character level ambiguity: consequences for user interface design , 1982 .

[9]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast , 1996, TCHI.

[11]  A. R. Hale,et al.  Set phasers on stun: S. Casey. Aegean publishing company, Santa Barbara, 1993, pp. 219, $24.95 , 1995 .

[12]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  A Working Memory Model of a Common Procedural Error , 1997, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  A. Shepherd,et al.  Guide to Task Analysis , 2003 .

[14]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task , 1997, TCHI.

[15]  R. Roberts,et al.  Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. , 1994 .

[16]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Routine Procedural Isomorphs and Cognitive Control Structures , 2004, ICCM.

[17]  J. Shaoul.  Human Error , 1973, Nature.

[18]  Denis Besnard,et al.  Interface changes causing accidents. An empirical study of negative transfer , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[19]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Visual Cues to Reduce Errors in a Routine Procedural Task , 2004 .

[20]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for Goals: An Architectural Perspective , 2020, Proceedings of the Twenty First Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.