Effects of Task Performance and Task Complexity on the Validity of Computational Models of Attention

Abstract

Computational models of attention can be used as a component of decision support systems. For accurate support, a computational model of attention has to be valid and robust. The effects of task performance and task complexity on the validity of three different computational models of attention were investigated in an experiment. The gaze-based model uses gaze behavior to determine where the subject's attention is, the task-based model uses information about the task and the combined model uses both gaze behavior and task information. While performing a tactical compilation task, participants had to indicate to what set of objects their attention was allocated. The indications of the participants were compared with the estimations of the three models. The results show that overall, the estimation of the combined model was better than that of the other two models. Contrary to what was expected, the performance of the models was not different for good and bad performers and was not different for a simple and complex scenario. The difference in complexity and performance might not have been strong enough. Further research is needed to determine if improvement of the combined model is possible with additional features and if computational models of attention can effectively be used in decision support systems. This can be done using a similar validation methodology as presented in this paper.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bosse

Maanen

P.-P.

van Treur

, Simulation and Formal Analysis of Visual Attention, Journal of Web Intelligence and Agent Systems (WIAS), IOS Press, 2008.

Chalmers

B. A.

Webb

R. D. G.

Keeble

(2002). Modeling shipboard tactical picture compilation. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Fusion. Volume 2, Sunnyvale, CA, International Society of Information Fusion, pp. 1292–1299.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Peterson

S. A.

Pomranky

R. A.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. Int. J. Human-Computer studies, 58, 697–718.

Grootjen

Neerincx

(2005). Operator load management during task execution in process control. Human Factors Impact on Ship Design, Genoa.

Just

Carpenter

(1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.

Kahneman

(1973). Attention and effort. Prentice Hall, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ.

Maanen

P.-P.

van Koning

Dongen van

(2007). Design and Validation of HABTA: Human Attention-Based Task Allocator, In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Human Aspects in Ambient Intelligence, Darmstadt, Germany, to be published by Springer.

Ouerhani

Von Wartburg

Hügli

Müri

(2004). Emperical Validation of the saliency-based Model of Visual Attention. Electronic Letters on Computer Vision and Image Analysis, 3(1), 13–14.

Parasuraman Riley (1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, and Abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

10.

Pavel

Wang

(2003). Augmented cognition: Allocation of attention. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS03).

11.

Salvucci

D. D.

(2000). A model of eye movements and visual attention. Third International Conference on Cognitive modeling, pp. 252–259.

12.

Swets

J. A.

(1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.

13.

Treisman Gelade (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

14.

Verkuijlen

R. P. M.

Muller

T. J.

(2007). Action speed tactical trainer review. Technical report, TNO Human Factors.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman

Davies

D. R.

Varieties of attention, 63–102. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

16.

Wickens

C. D.

McCarley

J. S.

(2007). Applied attention theory. CRC Press.

17.

Wood

R. E.

(1986). Task complexity: Definition of construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82.

18.

Zijlstra

F. R. H.

Doorn

L. V.

(1985). The Construction of a Scale to Measure Perceived Effort. Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.