Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A QUALITATIVE METHOD TO ESTIMATE HSI DISPLAY COMPLEXITY

  • Hugo, Jacques (Idaho National Laboratory, Human Factors Department) ;
  • Gertman, David (Idaho National Laboratory, Human Factors Department)
  • Received : 2012.12.27
  • Published : 2013.04.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

There is mounting evidence that complex computer system displays in control rooms contribute to cognitive complexity and, thus, to the probability of human error. Research shows that reaction time increases and response accuracy decreases as the number of elements in the display screen increase. However, in terms of supporting the control room operator, approaches focusing on addressing display complexity solely in terms of information density and its location and patterning, will fall short of delivering a properly designed interface. This paper argues that information complexity and semantic complexity are mandatory components when considering display complexity and that the addition of these concepts assists in understanding and resolving differences between designers and the preferences and performance of operators. This paper concludes that a number of simplified methods, when combined, can be used to estimate the impact that a particular display may have on the operator's ability to perform a function accurately and effectively. We present a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and a method for complexity estimation.

Keywords

References

  1. Banks, W.W., and Weimer, J., (1992). Effective Computer Display Design, Prentice Hall, NY.
  2. Ben-Shachar, M., Palti, D., and Grodzinsky, Y., (2004). "Neural correlates of syntactic movement: converging evidence from two fMRI experiments." NeuroImage, 21(4), 1320-1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.027
  3. Beck, M.R., Lohrenz, M.C., & Trafton, J.G. (2010). Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: Global and local clutter. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 238-250 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019633
  4. Bertin, J., (2011). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. ESRI Press, Redlands, CA.
  5. Bonebright, T.L., Nees, M.A., Connerly, T.T., and McCain, G.R. (2001). "Testing the effectiveness of sonified graphs for education: A programmatic research project." Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2001), Espoo, Finland. 62-66.
  6. Brennan, J. and Pylkkanen, L., (2012). "The time-course and spatial distribution of brain activity associated with sentence processing." NeuroImage, 60: 1139-1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.030
  7. Brennan, J., and Pylkkanen, L., (1988). "Behavioural and MEG Measures of Two Different Types of Semantic Complexity." Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 777-807, 2010 https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003616840
  8. Burleson, B.R., and Waltman, M.S. (1988). "Cognitive complexity: Using the Role Category Questionnaire measure." In C. H. Tardy (Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes (pp. 1-35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  9. Caplan, D., Vijayan, S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D, (2002). "Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses." Human Brain Mapping, 15(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.1059
  10. Cummings, M.L., Sasangohar, F., Thornburg, K.M., Xing, J. and D'Agostino, A. (2010). "Human-System Interface Complexity and Opacity. Part I: Literature Review." NRC Report. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  11. Faichney, J. (2004), Content-based retrieval of digital video. Doctoral thesis, Griffith University.
  12. Ferreira, F., and Clifton Jr., C. (1986). "The Independence of Syntactic Processing." Journal of Memory and Language, 25(3), 348-368 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
  13. Frazier, L. and Fodor, J.D. (1978) "The sausage machine: A new two stage parsing Model". Cognition, Volume 6 pp 291-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(78)90002-1
  14. Gennari, S. and Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity, Cognition, 89(1), B27-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00069-6
  15. Gertman, D. (2012). "Complexity: Application to Human Performance Modeling and HRA for Dynamic Environments," Proceedings for Instrumentation Control and Intelligent Systems (ICIS), Salt Lake City UT.
  16. Gibson, E. (1998). "Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies." Cognition, 68, 1-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1
  17. Gilmore, W. E., Gertman, D.I., and Blackman, H.S. (1989). The User-Computer Interface in Process Control, Academic Press, San Diego.
  18. Heise, D. R. (1965). "Semantic differential profiles for 1,000 most frequent English words." Psychological Monographs, 70 8:
  19. Liu, Xiaofei (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4):474-496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
  20. Lohrenz, M.C., Trafton, J.G., Beck., M.R., and Gendron, M.L: (2009). "A model of clutter for complex multivariate, geospatial displays." Human Factors, 51(1) 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809333518
  21. Mack, M. L., and Oliva, A. (2004). "Computational estimation of visual complexity". Paper presented at the 12th Annual Object, Perception, Attention, and Memory Conference. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  22. Nees, M.A. and Walker, B.N., (2008). "Data density and trend reversals in auditory graphs: Effects on point-estimation and trend-identification tasks". ACM Transactions. Appl. Percpt. 5, 3, Article 13 (August 2008), 24 pages. DOI.
  23. Ngo, D.C.L. and Byrne, J.G.,(2001). "Another look at a model for evaluating interface aesthetics." International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Vol.11, No.2, 515-535.
  24. Reddy, L. and VanRullen, R. (2007). "Spacing affects some but not all visual searches: Implications of theories of attention and crowding." Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1-17.
  25. Rosenholtz, R., (2000). "Significantly different textures: A computational model of pre-attentive texture." ECCV.
  26. Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., and Nakano, L., (2007). "Measuring Visual Clutter," Journal of Vision, 2007, 7(2):17, 1-22
  27. Sanderson, P.M., Flach, J.M., Buttigieg, M.A., and Casey, E. J., (1989). "Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance." Human Factors, 31, 2, 183- 198. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088903100207
  28. Shepard, R. N. and Cooper, L.A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA/London, England: MIT Press.
  29. Tufte, E.R., (2001). Visual display of quantitative information (2nd Ed). Graphics Press.
  30. Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Jenkins, D.P. and Rafferty, L. (2010). "Translating concepts of complexity to the field of ergonomics." Ergonomics, 53(10), 1175 - 1186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2010.513453
  31. Ware, C. (2000) Information Visualization: Perception in Design. Morgan Kauffmann, NY: NY,
  32. Webb, N.L., 1999, Alignment Between Standards and Assessment, University of Wisconsin Centre for Educational Research.
  33. Xing, J. (2004). Measures of Information Complexity and the Implications for Automation Design. FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. DOT/FAA/AM-04/17.