1 / 24

Shared Information and Virtual Surfaces Stephen C. Hayne Cap Smith Leo Vijayasarathy

This research is supported by Dr. Mike Letsky Grant #66001-00-1-8967. Shared Information and Virtual Surfaces Stephen C. Hayne Cap Smith Leo Vijayasarathy. Colorado State University Computer Information Systems. Collaboration and Cognition. Info Sharing (Stasser). DCOG (Hutchins).

shoshana
Télécharger la présentation

Shared Information and Virtual Surfaces Stephen C. Hayne Cap Smith Leo Vijayasarathy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. This research is supported by Dr. Mike Letsky Grant #66001-00-1-8967 Shared Information and Virtual SurfacesStephen C. HayneCap SmithLeo Vijayasarathy Colorado State UniversityComputer Information Systems

  2. Collaboration and Cognition Info Sharing (Stasser) DCOG (Hutchins) Templates(Gobet & Simon) Stimulating Structures(Grasse) RPD (Klein) Shared Mental Models(Cannon-Bowers) EBR (Pennington & Hastie) Transactive Memory (Wegner) Awareness (Dourish)

  3. Situation Pattern Communication Response Execution Assessment Selection Stimulating Structure (Cognitive Chunk or Template) Collaboration and Cognition Team Recognition Primed Decision Making • Knowledge is not action. • Knowledge is situational. • Action is in the situation. (Peter Keen)

  4. The Model Human Processor (from Card, Moran, and Newell)

  5. Multiple Independent Channels of Working Memory (Baddeley)

  6. Memory Chunks (Simon, etc.)

  7. Template Theory • Recent refinement of memory chunks (Gobet and Simon, 1996, 1998, 2000) • Experienced people create complex structures called “templates” • Templates have a core,slots and linkages to other templates which facilitate fast access to long term memory • Templates can store at least 10 items and are often labeled

  8. Chess Template

  9. Template Creation • Goal Oriented: a deliberate, conscious process (explicit) • Perceptual: a continuous, automatic process (implicit) • Perceptual dominates in many areas, i.e. verbal learning, chess expertise and problem solving. (Gobet et al., 2001)

  10. Collaboration and Cognition Situation Pattern Communication Response Execution Assessment Selection CORE SLOT Team Recognition Primed Decision Making

  11. Experimental Design Tool Training

  12. Hypotheses • H1: In a pattern-recognition task, the outcome quality of teams supported with a chunk-sharing tool will be greater than the outcome quality of teams supported with a discrete-item tool. • H2: In a pattern-recognition task, the outcome quality of the teams with implicit training will be greater than the outcome quality of the teams with explicit training.

  13. Decision Game • Cooperative 3-Player Game • Each player has 7 Tokens (numbered 1-7) • Opponent has asymmetric resources • Patterns: Definitive, Equivocal, Uncertain • Team places tokens so total >= opponent • Incentive • Points in each trial ($.50/point/person) • Time of play (countdown $1/person starting @ 1 minute) • Play is interactive

  14. Dependent Measure • Outcome Quality: the overall measure of team performance. It was assessed by computing the number of regions won by a team in a trial.

  15. Revealed Information Template Label Indication with Confidence

  16. Patterns 20 20 20 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 14 1 9 10 19 1 19 19 1 1 14 Template Labels 9 10 14

  17. Our Patterns as Templates 20 20 20 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 14 1 9 10 19 1 19 19 1 1 14 Template Labels 9 10 14 Core Slot

  18. Experimental Setting

  19. Data Collected • Demographics: • 73.7% Male (sophomores and seniors) • Average Age: 23 • Subjects were paid ~ $2000…

  20. Results - Descriptive

  21. Results - Anova

  22. Summary • Our Stimulating Structure (chunk), mapped to cognitive templates/chunks was an effective pattern sharing tool. • Perceptual/Implicit training is better than Goal-Oriented/Explicit training for pattern recognition. • Cognitive fit between training and tool is important.

  23. Summary • Our Stimulating Structure (chunk), mapped to cognitive templates/chunks was an effective pattern sharing tool. • In the pattern-recognition task domain, we recommend creating tools for sharing “labeled” patterns to facilitate shared cognition.

  24. Questions?

More Related