Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T21:37:06.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Salience sensitive control, temporal attention and stimulus-rich reactive interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2011

Claudia Roda
Affiliation:
The American University of Paris, France
Get access

Summary

This chapter reviews the results of the Salience Project, a cross-disciplinary research project focused on understanding how humans direct attention to salient stimuli. The first objective of the project was theoretical: that is, to understand behaviourally and electrophysiologically how humans direct attention through time to semantically and emotionally salient visual stimuli. Accordingly, we describe the glance-look model of the attentional blink. Notably, this model incorporates two levels of meaning, both of which are based upon latent semantic analysis, and, in addition, it incorporates an explicit body-state subsystem in which emotional experience manifests. Our second major objective has been to apply the same glance-look model to performance analysis of human–computer interaction. Specifically, we have considered a class of system which we call stimulus-rich reactive interfaces (SRRIs). Such systems are characterized by demanding (typically) visual environments, in which multiple stimuli compete for the user's attention, and a variety of physiological measures are employed to assess the user's cognitive state. In this context, we have particularly focused on electroencephalogram (EEG) feedback of stimulus perception. Moreover, we demonstrate how the glance-look model can be used to assess the performance of a variety of such reactive computer interfaces. Thus, the chapter contributes to the study of attentional support and adaptive interfaces associated with digital environments.

Introduction

Humans are very good at prioritizing competing processing demands. In particular, perception of a salient environmental event can interrupt ongoing processing, causing attention, and accompanying processing resources, to be redirected to the new event.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, A. K. 2005. Affective influences on the attentional dynamics supporting awareness, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134: 258–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, A. K., and Phelps, E. A. 2001. Lesions of the human amygdala impair enhanced perception of emotionally salient events, Nature 411: 305–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnard, P. J. 1999. Interacting cognitive subsystems: Modelling working memory phenomena within a multi-processor architecture, in A. Miyake and P. Shah (eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 298–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, P. J., and Bowman, H. 2004. Rendering information processing models of cognition and affect computationally explicit: Distributed executive control and the deployment of attention, Cognitive Science Quarterly 3: 297–328Google Scholar
Barnard, P. J., Ramponi, C., Battye, G., and Mackintosh, B. 2005. Anxiety and the deployment of visual attention over time, Visual Cognition 12: 181–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, P. J., Scott, S., Taylor, J., May, J., and Knightley, W. 2004. Paying attention to meaning, Psychological Science 15: 179–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., and Damasio, H. 2000. Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, Brain 123(11): 2189–202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowman, H., Su, L., and Barnard, P. J. 2006. Semantic Modulation of Temporal Attention: Distributed Control and Levels of Abstraction in Computational Modelling (Technical Report 9-06): Computing Laboratory, University of Kent at Canterbury
Bowman, H., and Wyble, B. 2007. The simultaneous type, serial token model of temporal attention and working memory, Psychological Review 114: 38–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherry, E. C. 1953. Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears, Journal of Acoustical Society of America 25: 975–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, M. M., and Potter, M. C. 1995. A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 109–27Google ScholarPubMed
Corbetta, M., Patel, G., and Shulman, G. L. 2008. The reorienting system of the human brain: From environment to theory of mind, Neuron 58: 306–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbetta, M., and Shulman, G. L. 2002. Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain, Nature Reviews 3: 201–15
Craston, P., Wyble, B., Chennu, S., and Bowman, H. 2009. The attentional blink reveals serial working memory encoding: Evidence from virtual and human event-related potentials, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 21: 550–66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes' Error. New York: G. P. PutnamGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diaper, D., and Stanton, N. (eds.) 2004. The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human–Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Donchin, E. 1981. Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!…Surprise? Psychophysiology 18: 493–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, A., and Richard, A. 1999. Attentional bias to threat related material in anxiety: A resource allocation or a practice effect? Poster presentation at September conference, Cognitive Section of the British Psychological Society
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of the acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge, Psychological Review 104: 211–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., and Laham, D. 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis, Discourse Processes 25: 259–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., and Dennis, S. (eds.) 2007. Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., and Tata, P. 1986. Attentional bias in emotional disorders, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 95: 15–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna, F. P., and Sharma, D. 2004. Reversing the emotional Stroop effect reveals that it is not what it seems: The role of fast and slow components, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 30: 382–92Google Scholar
McNichol, D. 1972. A Primer of Signal Detection Theory. London: George Allen & UnwinGoogle Scholar
Most, S. B., Smith, S. D., Cooter, A. B., Levy, B. N., and Zald, D. H. 2007. The naked truth: Positive, arousing distractors impair rapid target perception, Cognition and Emotion 21: 964–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oatley, K., and Johnson-Laird, P. 1987. Towards a cognitive theory of emotion, Cognition and Emotion 1: 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, R. C., and Munakata, Y. 2000. Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Pashler, H. 1994. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory, Psychological Bulletin 116: 220–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picard, R. W. 1998. Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., and Arnell, K. M. 1992. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18: 849–60Google Scholar
Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., and Shalin, V. L. (eds.) 2000. Cognitive Task Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., and Corwin, J. 1988. Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117: 34–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spielberger, C. D. 1972. Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research: I. New York: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielberger, C. D. 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists PressGoogle Scholar
Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., and Hillyard, S. A. 1975. Two varieties of long latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man, Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 38: 387–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, L., Bowman, H., and Barnard, P. J. 2007. Attentional capture by meaning: A multi-level modelling study, in Proceedings of 29th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
Su, L., Bowman, H., and Barnard, P. J. 2008. Performance of reactive interfaces in stimulus rich environments, applying formal methods and cognitive frameworks, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 208: 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, L., Bowman, H., and Barnard, P. J. and Wyble, B. 2009. Process algebraic modelling of attentional capture and human electrophysiology in reactive systems, Formal Aspects of Computing 21(6): 513–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenbaum, A. S. 2002. Computer Networks. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. D., and Barnard, P. J. 1993. Affect, Cognition and Change: Re-modelling Depressive Thought. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Vogel, E. K., Luck, S. J., and Shapiro, K. L. 1998. Electrophysiological evidence for a postperceptual locus of suppression during the attentional blink, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24: 1656–74Google ScholarPubMed
Walker, J. H., Sproull, L., and Subramasi, R. 1994. Using a human face in an interface, in Proceedings CHI'94 ACM: 85–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M., Madhyastha, T., Chan, N. H., Papadimitriou, S., and Faloutsos, C. 2002. Data mining meets performance evaluation: Fast algorithms for modeling bursty traffic, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering, San Jose, CA
Wyble, B., Bowman, H., and Potter, M. 2009. Categorically defined targets trigger spatiotemporal attention, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 35(2): 324–37
Wyble, B., Craston, P., and Bowman, H. 2006. Electrophysiological Feedback in Adaptive Human–Computer Interfaces (Technical Report 8-06): Computing Laboratory, University of Kent at CanterburyGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×