Displays used to support tasks involving temporal reasoning often represent temporal information in a format reasonable for computers, but cumbersome for humans. Study participants compared sentences describing relationships between time intervals to either an alpha-numeric or graphical display and responded true/false. Two categories of relationships were examined: relative (before, after) and contained (during, contains). The graphical display allowed faster rejection of instances of categorical mismatch based on perceptual differences and evaluation of truth-conditions at a higher level of abstraction between the two types of relationships.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenJ. F. (1983). Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 26 (11), 832–843.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1979). Further arguments concerning representations for mental imagery: A response to Hayes-Roth and Pylyshyn. Psychological Review, 86, (4), 395–406.
3.
BennettK. B.FlachJ. M. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, (5), 513–533.
4.
CarswellC. M.WickensC. D. (1990). The Perceptual Integration of Graphical Attributes: Configurality, Stimulus Homogeneity, and Object Integration. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 157–168.
5.
ClarkH. H.ChaseW. G. (1972). On the Process of Comparing Sentences Against Pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517.
6.
Hayes-RothF. (1979). Distinguishing theories of representation: A critique of Anderson's “Arguments concerning mental imagery.”Psychological Review, 86, (4), 376–382.
7.
KellerC. M.KellerJ. D. (1996). Imaging in Iron, or Thought is not Inner Speech. In: Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, JohnJ.StephenC. GumperzLevinson, ed. Cambridge, MA, University Press.
8.
KosslynS. M. (1981). The medium and the message in mental imagery: A theory. Psychological Review, 88, (1), 46–66.
9.
PalmerS. E. (1978). Fundamental Aspects of Cognitive Representational Systems. In: Cognition and Categorization, ElanorRosch (Ed.), Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates; New York: distributed by Halsted Press.
10.
PiagetJ.InhelderB. (1956). The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
11.
PylyshynZ. W. (1979). Validating computational models: A critique of Anderson's indeterminacy of representation claim. Psychological Review, 86, (4), 383–394.
12.
RasmussenJ.VicenteK. J. (1989). Coping with human errors through system design: Implications for ecological interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 31, 517–534.
13.
RasmussenL.ShalinV. L. (in preparation). Lexical influences on the process of reasoning with graphical and numeric representations.
14.
VicenteK. J.RasmussenJ. (1990). The ecology of human-machine systems II: Mediating “direct perception” in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology, 2, (3), 207–249.
15.
WickensC. D.AndreA. D. (1990). Proximity Compatibility and Information Display: Effects of Color, Space, and Objectness on Information Integration. Human Factors, 32, (1), 61–77.
16.
WoodsD. D. (1991). The cognitive engineering of problem representations. In: Human-Computer Interaction and Complex Systems, WeirG. R. S.AltyJ. L. (Eds.). London: Academic.
17.
ZhangJ.NormanD. A. (1994). Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, (1), 87–122.
