Prediction of Human Performance Time to Find Objects on Multi-display Monitors using ACT-R Cognitive Architecture

Objective: The aim of this study was to predict human performance time in finding objects on multi-display monitors using ACT-R cognitive architecture. Background: Display monitors are one of the representative interfaces for interaction between people and the system. Nowadays, the use of multi-display monitors is increasing so that it is necessary to research about the interaction between users and the system on multi-display monitors. Method: A cognitive model using ACT-R cognitive architecture was developed for the model-based evaluation on multi-display monitors. To develop the cognitive model, first, an experiment was performed to extract the latency about the where system of ACT-R. Then, a menu selection experiment was performed to develop a human performance model to find objects on multi-display monitors. The validation of the cognitive model was also carried out between the developed ACT-R model and empirical data. Results: As a result, no significant difference on performance time was found between the model and empirical data. Conclusion: The ACT-R cognitive architecture could be extended to model human behavior in the search of objects on multi-display monitors.. Application: This model can help predicting performance time for the model-based usability evaluation in the area of multi-display work environments.

[1]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[2]  Rohae Myung,et al.  Prediction of Menu selection on Touch-screen Using A Cognitive Architecture: ACT-R , 2010 .

[3]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Modeling icon search in ACT-R/PM , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[4]  David E. Kieras,et al.  An Overview of the EPIC Architecture for Cognition and Performance With Application to Human-Computer Interaction , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  Byoung-Jun Park,et al.  ACT-R Predictive Model of Korean Text Entry on Touchscreen , 2012 .

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

[7]  Myung-Chul Jung,et al.  The Survey of Job Rotation Implementation at Medium- and Small-Industries , 2013 .

[8]  Chung Yu-Kyoung.  Case Analysis of Multi Display and A Study on Management Interface , 2011 .

[9]  John R. Anderson,et al.  A Rational Analysis of Categorization , 1990, ML.

[10]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  ACT-R/PM and menu selection: applying a cognitive architecture to HCI , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[11]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  Model-based evaluation of expert cell phone menu interaction , 2007, TCHI.

[12]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Enhancing ACT-R's Perceptual-Motor Abilities , 2008 .

[13]  Gwendolyn E. Campbell,et al.  HBR Validation: Integrating Lessons Learned From Multiple Academic Disciplines, Applied Communities, and the AMBR Project , 2006 .

[14]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[15]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[16]  John R. Anderson,et al.  ACT-R: A Theory of Higher Level Cognition and Its Relation to Visual Attention , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[17]  Brian D. Ehret,et al.  Learning where to look: the acquisition of location knowledge in display-based interaction , 1999 .

[18]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human factors in engineering and design, 7th ed. , 1993 .

[19]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[20]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique? , 1996, TCHI.

[21]  Dario D. Salvucci.  Modeling Driver Behavior in a Cognitive Architecture , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[22]  Fred Adams,et al.  Perception and action , 2015 .