Simple cognitive modeling in a complex cognitive architecture

ABSTRACT

Cognitive modeling has evolved into a powerful tool for understanding and predicting user behavior. Higher-level modeling frameworks such as GOMS and its variants facilitate fast and easy model development but are sometimes limited in their ability to model detailed user behavior. Lower-level cognitive architectures such as EPIC, ACT-R, and Soar allow for greater precision and direct interaction with real-world systems but require significant modeling training and expertise. In this paper we present a modeling framework, ACT-Simple, that aims to combine the advantages of both approaches to cognitive modeling. ACT-Simple embodies a "compilation" approach in which a simple description language is compiled down to a core lower-level architecture (namely ACT-R). We present theoretical justification and empirical validation of the usefulness of the approach and framework.

REFERENCES

• 1: Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• 2: Ball, J., Gluck, K., Krusmark, M., Purtee, M., & Rodgers, S. (2002). Process and challenges in development of the Predator air vehicle operator model. Eighth Annual ACT-R Workshop, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
• 3: Best, B., Lebiere, C. & Scarpinatto, C. (2002). Modeling synthetic opponents in urban combat simulations. Eighth Annual ACT-R Workshop, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
• 4: Byrne, M. D. (2001). ACT-R/PM and menu selection: Applying a cognitive architecture to HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 41--84.
• 5: Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing.. Psychological Review, 108, 847--869.
• 6: Stuart K. Card , Allen Newell , Thomas P. Moran, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1983
• 7: Gray, W. D., John, B. E., & Atwood, M. E. (1993). Project Ernestine: A validation of GOMS for prediction and explanation of real-world task performance. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 237--309.
• 8: Anthony J. Hornof , David E. Kieras, Cognitive modeling reveals menu search in both random and systematic, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.107-114, March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States [doi>10.1145/258549.258621]
• 9: Bonnie E. John, Extensions of GOMS analyses to expert performance requiring perception of dynamic visual and auditory information, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, p.107-116, April 01-05, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/97243.97262]
• 10: Bonnie E. John , David E. Kieras, The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.3 n.4, p.320-351, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.1145/235833.236054]
• 11: Bonnie E. John , David E. Kieras, Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique?, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.3 n.4, p.287-319, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.1145/235833.236050]
• 12: Bonnie John , Alonso Vera , Michael Matessa , Michael Freed , Roger Remington, Automating CPM-GOMS, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/503376.503404]
• 13: Kieras, D. E. (1988). Towards a practical GOMS model methodology for user interface design. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 135--157). New York: North-Holland Publishing.
• 14: John E. Laird , Allen Newell , Paul S. Rosenbloom, SOAR: an architecture for general intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, v.33 n.1, p.1-64, Sept. 1987 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(87)90050-6]
• 15: Lebiere, C., & Anderson, J. R. (1993). A connectionist implementation of the ACT-R production system. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 16: Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Does learning of a complex task have to be complex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 267--316.
• 17: Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3--65.
• 18: Allen Newell, Unified theories of cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990
• 19: Jakob Nielsen , Victoria L. Phillips, Estimating the relative usability of two interfaces: heuristic, formal, and empirical methods compared, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.214-221, April 24-29, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/169059.169173]
• 20: Salvucci, D. D. (2001). Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: An integrated model approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 85--107.
• 21: Salvucci, D. D., Boer, E. R., & Liu, A. (2001). Toward an integrated model of driver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Transportation Research Record, 1779.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human information processing

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology; Theory and methods; Prototyping

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors

Keywords:
ACT-R, cognitive architectures, cognitive modeling