Mind-Based Technologies are technologies that can facilitate immediate psychological effects, such as emotion, cognition, presence and flow in their users as they are consuming multimodal information. With personalization technologies one may vary the content and way of presenting information to enable targeted and personalized psychological effects. The key to producing such effects is to be able to model the users and predict how they may react to a particular content and way of presenting information (modalities, visual layouts, ways of interaction, user interface controls) within a certain context, task, communication device and user interface. Despite obvious complexities empirical evidence suggests that the way of presenting information to users with certain psychological profiles has predictable effects. Hence, one may propose new types of system designs that would tend to produce desired types of psychological effects for individual users by varying the way of presenting information. One possible application area of Mind-Based Technologies is decision-making systems for military use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenklerY. (2000). From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation. Federal Communications Law Journal52, 561–63.
2.
BraveS.NassC. (2003). Emotion in human-computer interaction. In JackoJ. A.SearsA.The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, (pp. 81–96). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
BillmannD. (1998). Representations. In BechtelW.GrahamG.A companion to cognitive science (pp. 649–659. Maiden, MA: Blackwell publishers.
4.
CloreG. C.GasperK. (2000). Feeling is believing. Some affective influences on belief. In FrijdaN.H.MansteadA. S. R.BernS.Emotions and beliefs: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 10–44. Paris/Cambridge: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme and Cambridge University Press.
5.
ChikszentmihalyiM.ChikszentmihalyiS. (1988) Optimal experience. Psychological studies in the flow of consciousness. Cambridge University Press, New York.
6.
CuperfainR.ClarkeT. K. (1985) A new perspective on subliminal perception. Journal of Advertising, 14, 36–41.
7.
IsenA. M. (2000). Positive affect and decision making. In LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. M.Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.) (pp. 417–435). New York: Guilford Press.
8.
KihlströmJ. F.BarnhardtT. M.TatarynD. J. (1992). Implicit perception. In BornsteinR. F.PittmannT. S.Perception without awareness. Cognitive, clinical and social perspectives (pp. 17–54. New York: Guilford Press.
9.
KrosnickJ. A.BetzA. L.JussimJ. L.LynnA. R. (1992). Subliminal conditioning of attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 152–162.
10.
LangA. (1990). Involuntary attention and physiological arousal evoked by structural features and mild emotion in TV commercials. Communication Research, 17 (3), 275–299.
11.
LangA.DhillonP.DongQ. (1995). Arousal, emotion and memory for television messages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 1–15.
12.
LangA.NewhagenJ.ReevesB. (1996). Negative video as structure: Emotion, attention, capacity and memory. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 40, 460–477.
13.
LombardM.DittonT. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3 (2).
14.
ManovichL. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA, London, England: The MIT Press.
15.
RavajaN. (2002) Presence-related influences of a small talking facial image on psychophysiological measures of emotion and attention. Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Workshop Presence 2002. Porto, Portugal.
16.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation. How people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Stanford: Cambridge University Press.
17.
RieckenD. (2000). Personalized views on personalization. Communications of the ACM, V. 43, 8, 27–28.
18.
RidingR. J.RaynerS. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. Understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London: David Fulton Publishers.
19.
SmithP. J.GeddesN.D. (2003). A cognitive systems engineering approach to the design of decision support systems. In JackoJ.A.SearsA.The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, (pp. 565–676). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
SaariT. (1998). Knowledge creation and the production of individual autonomy. How news influences subjective reality. Reports from the department of teacher education in Tampere university. A15/1998.
21.
SaariT. (2001). Mind-Based Media and Communications Technologies. How the Form of Information Influences Felt Meaning. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 834. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
22.
SaariT. (2002). Designing Mind-Based Media and Communications Technologies. Proceedings of Presence 2002 Conference, Porto, Portugal, 79–87.
23.
SaariT.TurpeinenM. (2003). Towards Psychological Customization of Information for Individuals and Social Groups. Manuscript accepted to and presented at CHI 2003 Personalization Workshop: Designing User Experiences for E-Commerce, Florida, 6.-7.4.2003.
24.
ShardanandU.MaesP. (1995). Social Information Filtering: Algorithms for Automating “Word of Mouth”. Proceedings of CHF95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press.
25.
TurpeinenM. (2000). Customizing news content for individuals and communities. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica. Mathematics and computing series no. 103. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo.
26.
TurpeinenM.SaariT. (2003). System Architechture for Psychological Customization of Technology. A manuscript submitted to HICSS 2004- conference.
