skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1978997acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sensing cognitive multitasking for a brain-based adaptive user interface

Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Multitasking has become an integral part of work environments, even though people are not well-equipped cognitively to handle numerous concurrent tasks effectively. Systems that support such multitasking may produce better performance and less frustration. However, without understanding the user's internal processes, it is difficult to determine optimal strategies for adapting interfaces, since all multitasking activity is not identical. We describe two experiments leading toward a system that detects cognitive multitasking processes and uses this information as input to an adaptive interface. Using functional near-infrared spectroscopy sensors, we differentiate four cognitive multitasking processes. These states cannot readily be distinguished using behavioral measures such as response time, accuracy, keystrokes or screen contents. We then present our human-robot system as a proof-of-concept that uses real-time cognitive state information as input and adapts in response. This prototype system serves as a platform to study interfaces that enable better task switching, interruption management, and multitasking.

References

  1. Bailey, B. P., et al. The Effects of Interruptions on Task Performance, Annoyance, and Anxiety in the User Interface. INTERACT'01, 2001, 593--601.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chance, B., et al. A novel method for fast imaging of brain function, non-invasively, with light. Optics Express, 10 (2). 411--423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, D., et al. Towards a Physiological Model of User Interruptability. INTERACT'07, 2008, 439--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Czerwinski, M., et al. Instant Messaging: Effects of Relevance and Timing. HCI, 2000, 71--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fairclough, S. H. Fundamentals of physiological computing. Interact. Comput., 21 (1-2). 133--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S. E. and Lai, J. Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility. CHI'04, ACM, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Girouard, A., Solovey, E. T. and Jacob, J. K. Designing a Passive Brain Computer Interface using Real Time Classification of Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. Intl J of Auton. & Adaptive Comm. Sys. (2010). in press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Grimes, D., et al. Feasibility and pragmatics of classifying working memory load with an electroencephalograph. CHI'08, ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Hall, M., et al. The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 11 (1). 10--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Hirshfield, L., et al. Brain Measurement for Usability Testing and Adaptive Interfaces: An Example of Uncovering Syntactic Workload with Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy. CHI'09, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Hornof, A. J.,et al. Knowing where and when to look in a time-critical multimodal dual task. CHI '10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hudson, S., et al. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study. CHI '03, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Huppert, T., et al. A temporal comparison of BOLD, ASL, and NIRS hemodynamic responses to motor stimuli in adult humans. Neuroimage, 2006:29(2). 368--382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Iqbal, S. T., et al. Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. CHI '05, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Iqbal, S. T. and Bailey, B. P. Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. CHI extended abstracts, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Iqbal, S. T., Zheng, X. S. and Bailey, B. P. Task-evoked pupillary response to mental workload in human-computer interaction. CHI extended abstracts, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jackson, M. M. and Mappus, R. Applications for Brain-Computer Interfaces. in Tan, D. and Nijholt, A. eds. Brain Computer Interfaces: Applying our Minds to Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, 2010, 89--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Koechlin, E., et al. The role of the anterior prefrontal cortex in human cognition. Nature, 1999, 148--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Koechlin, E., et al. Dissociating the role of the medial and lateral anterior prefrontal cortex in human planning. PNAS, 97. 7651--7656.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuikkaniemi, K., et al. The influence of implicit and explicit biofeedback in first-person shooter games. CHI'10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Lee, J. C. and Tan, D. S. Using a low-cost electroencephalograph for task classification in HCI research UIST'06, ACM Press, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Mandryk, R. L. and Inkpen, K. M. Physiological indicators for the evaluation of co-located collaborative play CSCW '04, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. McFarlane, D. Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 17(1). 63--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Miyata, Y. and Norman, D. The Control of Multiple Activities. in Norman, D. and Draper, S. W. eds. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Miyata, Y. and Norman, D. Psychological Issues in Support of Multiple Activities. in Norman, D. A. and Draper, S. W. eds. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1986, 265--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Monk, C., et al. The attentional costs of interrupting task performance at various stages. HFES Ann. Mtg, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Parasuraman, R., et al. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 30 (3). 286--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Picard, R. W., et al. Toward Machine Emotional Intelligence: Analysis of Affective Physiological State. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 23 (10). 1175--1191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Salvucci, D. D. and Bogunovich, P. Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions. CHI'10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Sasse, A., et al. Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction. INTERACT, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Schermerhorn, P. and Scheutz, M. Dynamic robot autonomy: investigating the effects of robot decision-making in a human-robot team task. ICMI, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Scheutz, M., et al. First steps toward natural human-like HRI. Auton. Robots, 22 (4). 411--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Solovey, E. T., et al. Using fNIRS Brain Sensing in Realistic HCI Settings: Experiments and Guidelines. UIST'09, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Starner, T., Schiele, B. and Pentland, A. Visual Contextual Awareness in Wearable Computing. ISWC, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Yuksel, B. F., et al. A novel brain-computer interface using a multi-touch surface. CHI'10, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Sensing cognitive multitasking for a brain-based adaptive user interface
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
            May 2011
            3530 pages
            ISBN:9781450302289
            DOI:10.1145/1978942

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 7 May 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader