The ANETS model for representing and measuring the degree of the cognitive complexity of visual displays is described in general. Moreover, the results from several studies are described briefly that address the model's predictive power, the reliability of model usage, and the relationship to perceptual measures of display quality. Finally a model-based approach for interface design is discussed as possible and desirable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChechileR.AndersonJ.O'HearnB. (1989). An examination of the network model for cognitive complexity of displays. Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Tufts University, 1989.
2.
ChechileR.ButlerK.GutowskiW.PalmerE. (1979). Division of attention as a function of the number of steps, visual shifts, and memory load. In the Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control.Wright State University, 1979, Air Force Technical Report AFFDL-TR-79-3134.
3.
ChechileR.EgglestonR.FleischmanR.SassevilleA. (1989). Modeling the cognitive content of visual displays. Human Factors, 1989, 31, 31–43.
4.
ChechileR.GuerlainS.O'HearnB. (1989). A comparative study between mental workload and a priori measures of display complexity (U). AAMRL/HEA, Wright-Patterson AF Base, Ohio, 45433-6573.
5.
ChechileR.FleischmanR.SadoskiD. (1983). Memory and action grammar factors that influence the human-computer interaction. In the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control.257–274.
6.
ChechileR.FleischmanR.SadoskiD. (1986). The effects of syntactic complexity on the human-computer interaction. Human Factors, 1986, 28, 11–22.
7.
ChechileR.O'HearnB. (1987). Cognitive/perceptual analysis of display formats (U). AAMRL/HEA, Wright-Patterson AF Base, Ohio, 45433-6573.
8.
ChechileR.O'HearnB. (1989). A quantitative cognitive model of display complexity. AAMRL/HEA, Wright-Patterson AF Base, Ohio, 45433-6573. (a).
9.
ChechileR.O'HearnB. (1989). A study of the reliability of the cognitive network technique for evaluating display quality. Technical Report. Department of Psychology, Tufts University, 1989. (b).
10.
ChechileR.PeretzN.O'HearnB. (1989). A cognitive and perceptual model of display complexity. AAMRL/HEA, Wright-Patterson AF Base, Ohio, 45433-6573.
11.
ChechileR.SadoskiD. (1983) The effects of cuing in time-shared tasks. Human Factors, 1983, 25, 371–377.
12.
ChomskyN. (1963). Formal properties of grammars. In LuceD.BushR.GalanterE.Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 2, New York: John Wiley.
13.
EgglestonR.ChechileR.FleischmanR.SassevilleA. (1986). Modeling the cognitive complexity of visual displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 30.
14.
FleischmanR.ChechileR. (1985). Pacing effects on operator performance using semi-automated systems. In The Proceedings of the SME World Congress on the Human Aspects of Automation. 1985, 7171–7179.
15.
JensenK. (1981). Coloured Petri nets and the invariant-method. Theoretical Computer Science, 14, 317–336.
16.
KleinertH.HarshfieldT.PickeringT.DevereuxR.SullivanP.MarionR.MalloryW.LaraghJ., (1984). What is the value of home blood pressure measure in patients with mild hypertension?, Hypertension, 6, July-August.
17.
McCormickE. (1976). Human factors in engineering and design.New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
RumelhartD.McClellandJ. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Micro-structures of Cognition, vol. 1, Cambridge, Ma.: MIT press.
19.
ShurtleffD. (1980). How to make displays legible.La Mirada, Ca.: Human-Interface Design.
20.
TullisT. (1983). The formatting of alphanumeric displays: A review and analysis. Human Factors, 25, 657–682.
21.
TullisT. (1984). A computer-based tool for evaluating alphanumeric displays. Proceedings of Interact 1984 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (vol.2, pp. 123–127). London: Academic Press.
