Making a task difficult: Evidence that device-oriented steps are effortful and error-prone

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 195-204

  Ament, Maartje G A ^a   Cox, Anna L ^a   Blandford, Ann ^a   Brumby, Duncan P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Error; Memory; Task performance

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTIVATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; GOALS; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884689630     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0034397     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activationbased model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39 - 83. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog2601_2
2. Ament, M. G. A. (2011a). Frankenstein and human error: Device-oriented steps are more problematic than task-oriented ones. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing System (pp. 905-910). New York, NY: ACM.
3. Ament, M. G. A. (2011b). The role of goal relevance in the occurrence of systematic slip errors in routine procedural tasks (Unpublished PhD thesis). Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK.
4. Ament, M. G. A., Blandford, A., & Cox, A. L. (2009). Different cognitive mechanisms account for different types of procedural steps. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2170-2175). Retrieved from http://www-abc.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/CogSci09/
5. Ament, M. G. A., Cox, A. L., Blandford, A., & Brumby, D. (2010). Working memory load affects device-specific but not task-specific error rates. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 91-96). Retrieved from http://cognitivesciencesociety.org/conference_past.html
6. Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.
7. Back, J., Blandford, A., & Curzon, P. (2007). Slip errors and cue salience. In W. Brinkman, D. Ham, & B. L. W. Wong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Invent! Explore! (pp. 221-224). New York: ACM.
8. Back, J., Cheng, W. L., Dann, R., Curzon, P., & Blandford, A. (2006). Does being motivated to avoid procedural errors influence their systematicity?. In Proceedings of HCI '06 (Vol. 1, pp. 2-9). New York: Springer-Verlag.
9. Blandford, A. (2000). Designing to avoid post-completion errors. PUMA Working Paper WP33. Retrieved from http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/puma/ wp33.pdf
10. Byrne, M. D., & Bovair, S. (1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science, 21, 31- 61. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog2101_2
11. Byrne, M. D., & Davis, E. M. (2006). Task structure and postcompletion error in the execution of a routine procedure. Human Factors, 48, 627-638. doi:10.1518/001872006779166398
12. Casey, S. M. (1998). Set phasers on stun: And other true tales of design, technology, and human error. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean Publishing Company.
13. Casey, S. M. (2006). The atomic chef: And other true tales of design, technology, and human error. Santa Barbara, CA: Aegean Publishing Company.
14. Chung, P. H., & Byrne, M. D. (2008). Cue effectiveness in mitigating postcompletion errors in a routine procedural task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 217-232. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.09 .001
15. Cox, A. L., & Young, R. M. (2000). Device-oriented and task-oriented exploratory learning of interactive devices. In N. Taatgen & J. Aasman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Cognitive Modelling (pp. 70-77). Veenendaal, the Netherlands: Universal Press.
16. Gray, W. D. (2000). The nature and processing of errors in interactive behaviour. Cognitive Science, 24, 205-248. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog2402_2
17. Hiltz, K., Back, J., & Blandford, A. (2010). The roles of conceptual device models and user goals in avoiding device initialization errors. Interacting with Computers, 22, 363-374. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2010.01.001
18. Jones, S. A., Gould, S. J. J., & Cox, A. L. (2012). Snookered by an interruption?: Use a cue. In B. R. Cowan, C. Bowers, R. Beale, & C. Baber (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers (BCS-HCI '12) (pp. 251- 256). Swinton, UK: British Computer Society.
19. Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984). The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device. Cognitive Science, 8, 255-273. doi:10.1207/ s15516709cog0803_3
20. Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 352- 358. doi:10.1037/h0043688
21. Kirschenbaum, S. S., Gray, W. D., Ehret, B. D., & Miller, S. L. (1996). When using the tool interferes with doing the task. In R. Bilger, S. Guest, & M. J. Tauber (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI '96 (pp. 203-204). New York, NY: ACM.
22. Li, S. Y.-W. (2006). An empirical investigation of post-completion error: A cognitive perspective. PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
23. Li, S. Y.-W., Blandford, A., Cairns, P., & Young, R. M. (2008). The effect of interruptions on postcompletion and other procedural errors: An account based on the activation-based goal memory model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 314-328. doi:10.1037/a0014397
24. Monk, A. (1986). Mode errors: A user-centred analysis and some preventative measures using keying-contingent sound. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24, 313-327. doi:10.1016/S0020- 7373(86)80049-9
25. Norman, D. A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review, 88, 1-15. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.1
26. Ratwani, R. M., McCurry, J. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2008). Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements. In M. Czerwinski, A. Lund, & D. Tan (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08) (pp. 539-542). New York, NY: ACM.
27. Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139062367
28. Reichman, R. (1986). Communication paradigms for a window system. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centred systems design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 285-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Rieman, J., Byrne, M. D., & Polson, P. G. (1994). Goal formation and the unselected window problem. In Proc. CHI94 Basic Research Symposium.
30. Sellen, A. J., Kurtenback, G. P., & Buxton, W. A. S. (1990). The role of visual feedback and kinesthetic feedback in the prevention of mode errors. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - INTERACT '90 (pp. 667-673). The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Co.
31. Thimbleby, H. (1990). User interface design. New York, NY: ACM.
32. Young, R. M. (1981). The machine inside the machine: Users' models of pocket calculators. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 51-85. doi:10.1016/S0020-7373(81)80023-5
33. Young, R. M. (1983). Surrogates and mappings: Two kinds of conceptual models for interactive devices. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 37-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Young, R. M. (1994). The unselected window scenario: Analysis based on the SOAR cognitive architecture. In Proc. CHI94 Basic Research Symposium.
35. Zimmermann, C. M., & Bridger, R. S. (2000). Effects of dialogue design on automatic teller machine (ATM) usability: Transaction times and card loss. Behaviour & Information Technology, 19, 441-449. doi: 10.1080/014492900750052697