An exploratory study of cognitive load in diagnosing patient conditions

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 127-133

  Workman, Michael ^a   Lesser, Michael F ^b   Kim, Joonmin ^c  

^a FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Holmes Regional Medical Center   (United States)

^c FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Acute care; Cognitive load; Visual information representation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC REASONING; EMERGENCY CARE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; MEDICAL STUDENT; OUTCOME VARIABLE; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOM SAMPLE; DIAGNOSIS; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; INTERNAL MEDICINE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL AUDIT; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; COGNITION; COMMUNICATION; DIAGNOSIS; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PHYSICIANS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34447521800     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: 14643677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm007     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bennett KB, Flach JM. Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Hum Factors 1992;34:513-33.
2. Chechile RA, Eggleston RG, Fleischman RN et al. Modeling the cognitive content of displays. Hum Factors 1989;31:31-43.
3. Lohr L. Creating Visuals for Learning and Peformance: Lessons in Visual Literacy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.
4. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
5. Rehder B, Hoffman AB. Eye tracking and selective attention in category learning. Cognit Psychol 2005;51:1-41.
6. Woods DD. The cognitive engineering of problem representations. In: Weir GRS., Alty JL (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction and Complex Systems London: Academic Press, 1994, 169-88.
7. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognit Sci 1988;12:257-85.
8. Posner MI. Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978.
9. Brunken R, Steinbacher S. Plass JL. et al. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual task methodology. J Exp Psycho 2002;49:109-119.
10. Hazeltine E, Ruthruff E, Remington RW. The role of input and output modality parings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognit Psychol 2006;52 291-345.
11. Bourke PA, Duncan J. Effect of template complexity on visual search and dual-task performance. Psychol Sci 2005;16:208-213.
12. Langer S. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957.
13. Legge GE, Gu Y, Luebker A. Efficiency of graphical perception Percept Psychophys 1989;46:365-74.
14. Chomsky N. Human language and other semiotic systems. Semiotica 1979;25:31-44.
15. Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol Rev 1977;84:127-190.
16. Montgomery DA. Human sensitivity to variability information in detection decisions. Hum Factors 1999;41:90-105.
17. Jacoby LL. A process discrimination framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. J Mem Lang 1991;30:531-41.
18. Baddeley AD, Hitch GJ. Working memory. In: Bower G. (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory New York. Academic Press, 1974.
19. Barnhardt TM. Number of solutions effects in stem decision: Support for the distinction between identification and production processes in priming. Memory 2005;13:725-748.
20. Komlodi A, Rheingans P, Ayachit U. et al. A user-centered look at glyph-based security visualization. IEEE Conference Workshop on Visualization for Computer Security 2005;26:21-28.
21. Cowan N. The magical number 4 in short-term memory. A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behav Brain Sci 2000;24:87-185.
22. Draycott SG, Kline P. Validation of the AGARD STRES battery of performance tests. Hum Factors 1996;38:347-61.
23. Wise JA, Thomas JJ, Pennock K. et al. Visualizing the non-visual: spatial analysis and interaction with information for text documents. In: Card SK, Mackinlay JD. (eds.) Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1999, 442-50.
24. Larkin JH, Simon HA. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousands words. Cognit Sci 1987;11: 65-99.
25. Rasmussen J, Vicente K. Coping with human errors through system design: Implications for ecological interface design. Int J Man-Mach Stud 1989;31:517-34.
26. Chernoff H. Using faces to represent points in k dimensional space graphically. J Am Statist Assoc 1973;68:361-68.
27. Kondo H, Mori H. A computer system applying the face method to represent multiphasic tests. Med Inform 1987;12:217-22.
28. Morris M. Kiviat graphs - conventions and figures of merit. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 1974;3:2-8.
29. Kolence KW, Kiviat PJ. Software unit profiles and Kiviat figures. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform Eval Rev 1973;2:2-12.
30. Pola Pl, Cruccu G, Dolce G. Star-like display of EEG spectral values. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980;50:527-9.
31. Paas F, Renkl A, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educ Psychol 2003;38:1-4.
32. Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H. et al. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol 2003; 38:63-71.