Evaluating Systematic Error Predictions in a Routine Procedural Task

Abstract

Systematic errors in routine procedural tasks present an important problem for psychologists who study interactions between humans and technological systems. This paper details an experiment designed to examine systematic error patterns and evaluate error predictions made by a notable psychological theory and industry-standard usability tools when performing multiple routine procedural tasks on a single highly visual interface. Participants completed three dynamic, computer-based routine procedural tasks involving execution of multiple steps. Differences were found in error frequencies at particular steps between the three tasks, a result that is consistent with predictions derived from Altmann and Trafton's (2002) activation-based model of memory for goals, but contrary to those of usability guidelines. Error patterns were reminiscent of several familiar types of systematic error.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altmann

E. M.

Trafton

J. G.

(1999). Memory for goals: An architectural perspective. Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 19–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Altmann

E. M.

Trafton

J. G.

(2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39 83.

Besnard

Cacitti

(2005). Interface changes causing accidents: An empirical study of negative transfer. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(1), 105 125.

Byrne

M. D.

(2005). Execution of isomorphic routine procedures: Errors and models. Presented at the ONR Workshop on Attention, Perception, and Modeling for Complex Displays, Arlington, VA, May 2005.

Byrne

M. D.

Bovair

(1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 31 61.

Byrne

M. D.

Chung

P. H.

Fick

C. S.

(2004). Mitigating errors in the execution of routine procedures. Presented at the ONR Workshop on Attention, Perception, and Modeling for Complex Displays, Newport, RI, May 2004.

Byrne

M. D.

Davis

E. M.

(2006). Task structure and postcompletion error in the execution of a routine procedure. Human Factors, 48, 627 638.

Byrne

M. D.

Maurier

Fick

C. S.

Chung

P. H.

(2004). Routine procedural isomorphs and cognitive control structures. In Schunn

C. D.

Lovett

M. C.

Lebiere

Munro

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling (pp. 52–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Casey

(1998). Set phasers on stun. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean Publishing.

10.

Chung

P. H.

Byrne

M. D.

(2004). Visual cues to reduce errors in a routine procedural task. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

11.

Degani

Shafto

Kirlik

(2000). Modes in human-machine systems: Constructs, Representation, and classification. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 125 138.

12.

Gray

W. D.

(2000). The nature and processing of errors in interactive behavior. Cognitive Science, 24(2), 205 248.

13.

John

B. E.

Kieras

D. E.

(1996). The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: Comparison and contrast. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 320 351.

14.

Kieras

D. E.

Wood

S. D.

Meyer

D. E.

(1997). Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 4, 230 275.

15.

Kirwan

Ainsworth

L. K.

(Eds.). (1992). A guide to task analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

16.

Norman

D. A.

, (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1 15.

17.

Reason

(1990). Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Roberts

R. J.

Hager

L. D.

Jr. Heron

(1994). Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 374 393.

19.

Stanton

N. A.

(2004). Human error identification in human-computer interaction. In Jacko

(Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

20.

Thimbleby

(1982). Character level ambiguity: Consequences for user interface design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 16, 211 225.

21.

Young

R. M.

Barnard

Simon

Whittington

(1989). How would your favorite user model cope with these scenarios? ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 20, 51 55.