skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357141acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements

Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

A postcompletion error is a distinct type of procedural error where one fails to complete the final step of a task. While redesigning interfaces and providing explicit cues have been shown to be effective in reducing the postcompletion error rate, these methods are not always feasible or well liked. This paper demonstrates how specific eye movement measures can be used to predict when a user will make a postcompletion error. We describe a real-time eye gaze system that provides cues to the user if and only if there is a high probability of the user making a postcompletion error.

References

  1. Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science 26:39--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Journal of Computers in Human Behavior 685--708.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Byrne, M. D., & Bovair, S. (1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science 21:31--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Byrne, M. D., & Davis, E. M. (2006). Task structure and postcompletion error in the execution of a routine procedure. Human Factors 48:627--638.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Casey, S. (1998). Set Phasers on Stun, 2 ed. Aegean Publishing Company, Santa Barbara.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chung, P. H., & Byrne, M. D. (in press). Cue effectiveness in mitigating postcompletion errors in a routine procedural task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Czerwinski M., Cutrell E. & Horvitz E. (2000) Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance, in: C. Paris, N. Ozkan, S. Howard & S. Lu (Eds.) Proceedings of OZCHI 2000: Interfacing Reality in the New Millennium, Academic Press, 356--361Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Just, M.A. & Carpetner, P.A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology. 8: 441--480.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Li, S. Y. W., Cox, A. L., Blandford, A., Cairns, P., & Abeles, A. (2006). Further investigations into post-completion error: the effects of interruption position and duration., Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., & Brock, D. P. (2005). Huh, what was I doing? How people use environmental cues after an interruption. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2008
        1870 pages
        ISBN:9781605580111
        DOI:10.1145/1357054

        Copyright © 2008 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 April 2008

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader