(Human Computer Interaction)

Activities

2
(Human Performance)

Name of Student Name of Professor

Serdan, Michael John B. Prof. Villanueva
Date Performed Date Submitted
Feb. 20, 2021 Feb. 20, 2021

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

I. OBJECTIVES

At the end of the experiment students must be able to:

Cognitive

a.) understand capabilities of human.

.

Psychomotor:

a.) determine human performance present in actions

Affective

a.) appreciate how human performs their everyday task

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In order to accomplish this task, the student must have a clear understanding of the following topics:

● The Human

III. PROCEDURES

1. Define the following and give instances where these human performances can be observed:

1. Reaction Time - Reaction time may be defined simply as the time between a stimulus and
a response. Three basic reaction time paradigms have been described: (1) simple reaction time
has a single stimulus and a single predefined response, (2) recognition reaction time has several
false stimuli mixed with one correct stimulus prompting the response, and (3) choice reaction
time involves multiple stimuli and differing responses for each stimulus. Serial reaction time is a
combination of recognition and choice reaction time, where the stimulus is a repeating sequence
that the subject must learn to predict and then to respond in a prescribed fashion.

An example of simple reaction time would be the time from a buzzing sound to moving a
finger. Adding false chime or ring sounds would convert the model to recognition reaction time,
while creating different responses for the chime or other ring sounds would convert the model to
a measurement of choice reaction time.

2. Visual Search - The visual search processes that people use have a substantial effect on
the time expended and likelihood of finding the information they seek. This dissertation

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

investigates visual search through experiments and computational cognitive modeling.
Computational cognitive modeling is a powerful methodology that uses computer simulation to
capture, assert, record, and replay plausible sets of interactions among the many human
processes at work during visual search. This dissertation aims to provide a cognitive model of
visual search that can be utilized by predictive interface analysis tools and to do so in a manner
consistent with a comprehensive theory of human visual processing, namely active vision. The
model accounts for the four questions of active vision, the answers to which are important to
both practitioners and researchers in HCI: What can be perceived in a fixation? When do the eyes
move? Where do the eyes move? What information is integrated between eye movements? This
dissertation presents a principled progression of the development of a computational model of
active vision.

For example, imagine one day my coworker and I are having lunch in a break room and
we each have an apple. We place our lunches beside each other and then both exit the room to
grab some napkins. When we return, there are two apples on the table that are quite similar in
appearance, but one apple is mine and the other is my coworker’s. In order to know which is mine,
I must have a representation that is discriminating. Despite the similarities between both apples,
I should be able to identify which apple belongs to me.

3. Skilled behavior - Human performance can be enormously enhanced through the use of
machines, but the interface connecting human and machine is subtle, and the success of the
entire human-machine system turns on the design of this interface. Air-traffic control systems,
personal computers with word processors, portable digital appliances—all can make it possible
for people to do new things, or, through poor design of the human-machine interface, all can be
rendered impractical or even dangerous. This lesson was learned early and often.

For example, in recommending a program of research on human engineering for a

national air-traffic control system, early researchers noted the following:

The disregard of physiological and sensory handicaps; or fundamental principles of

perception; of basic patterns of motor coordination; of human limitations in the integration of
complex responses, etc. has at times led to the production of mechanical monstrosities which tax
the capabilities of human operators and hinder the integration of man and machine into a system
designed for most effective accomplishment of designated tasks. (Fitts, 1951).

4. Attention - It is the taking possession by the mind in clear and vivid form, of one out of
what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization,
concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies a withdrawal from some things in
order to deal with others.

This oft-quoted passage from one of the founders of modern psychology captures some
of the essence of what we mean by attention. At the heart of the concept is the idea that there
are limits to our cognitive and perceptual capabilities, and that multiple demands are almost
always made on these limited resources. Some form of "filter" or selection process is required so

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

that we can focus on only a subset of the possible mental and perceptual activities; this process
of focusing is known as attention.

For example, imagine you have a visitor who has requested a cup of tea, while you only
drink coffee. You go to the kitchen intending to prepare both tea and coffee, but return with two
cups of coffee. The reason for this slip is clear; you failed to make an attentional check on your
plan at the point where the initial common pathway, boiling a kettle, branches into its separate
tea- and coffee-making components. As a result, you proceed along the habitual coffee route.

5. Human Errors - In any complex system, most errors and failures in the system can be
traced to a human source. Incomplete specifications, design defects, and implementation errors
such as software bugs and manufacturing defects, are all caused by human beings making
mistakes. However, when looking at human errors in the context of embedded systems, we tend
to focus on operator errors and errors caused by a poor human-computer interface (HCI).

Human beings have common failure modes and certain conditions will make it more likely
for a human operator to make a mistake. A good HCI design can encourage the operator to
perform correctly and protect the system from common operator errors. However, there is no
well-defined procedure for constructing an HCI for safety critical systems.

For instances, Automated systems are extremely good at repetitive tasks. However, if an
unusual situation occurs and corrective action must be taken, the system usually cannot react
well. In this situation, a human operator is needed handle an emergency. Humans are much better
than machines at handling novel occurrences, but cannot perform repetitive tasks well. Thus, the
operator is left to passively monitor the system when there is no problem, and is only a fail-safe
in an emergency. This is a major problem in HCI design, because when the user is not routinely
involved in the control of the system, they will tend to become bored and be lulled into
complacency. This is known as operator drop-out. Since the user's responsiveness is dulled, in a
real emergency situation, he or she may not be able to recover as quickly and will tend to make
more mistakes.

Stress is also a major contributing factor to human error. Stressful situations include
unfamiliar or exceptional occurrences, incidents that may cause a high loss of money, data, or life,
or time critical tasks. Human performance tends to degrade when stress levels are raised.
Intensive training can reduce this affect by making unusual situations a familiar scenario with
drills. However, the cases where human beings must perform at their best to avoid hazards are
often the cases of most extreme stress and worst error rates. The failure rate can be as high as
thirty percent in extreme situations. Unfortunately, the human operator is our only option, since
a computer system usually cannot correct for truly unique situations and emergencies. The best
that can be done is to design the user interface so that the operator will make as few mistakes as
possible.

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

2. Delay between a stimulus and a response (Reaction Time)
Try this: perform at least 5 clicks and then save to view your statistics.
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime

3. Cognitive abilities practice test

https://www.tests.com/practice/cognitive-abilities-practice-test

Criteria Descriptions Points

Definition of Human Correctness of the meaning base from the 20%

Performances definition

Choice of example Relation of the Human Performance to the 30%

given instance where it can be observed

Explanation Clarity of the argument for the principle being 30%

violated in the photo

Presentation Delivery of the whole document 20%

Total 100%

Note: The following rubrics/metrics will be used to grade students’ output in the lab 2.

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

Human Performance

1. Human Performance 1(Reaction Time)

Example:

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

2. Human performance 2 (Cognitive Test)

Example:

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA

References:

Reference 1:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-
biology/reaction-time

Reference 2:
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/9174
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-018-1522-y
Reference 3
https://cogtool.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/johnchapterincarroll2003.pdf
Reference 4
https://www.cs.uct.ac.za/mit_notes/human_computer_interaction/htmls/ch05s07.
html
Reference 5
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/des_s99/human/

PROF. JAEVIER A. VILLANUEVA