Signals, Truth, Design is the upcoming book of Judith Donath which deals with the social dynamics of the “mediated world” (i.e. email, forums and other communication supported by the Internet) and how to design it. To do so, the author use the “signaling theory” as a framework to describe how:

“most of the things we want to know about each other – one’s identity,
status, and intentions – are qualities that are not directly observable. Instead, we rely on signals, which are indicators of these hidden qualities, in order to comprehend the world around us. (…) Signaling theory explains what makes some signals more reliable than others are.“

She applies it to some more specific topics such as deception, identity, reputation or impression formation.
Why do I blog this? this topic is a bit different than what I am interested in, but awareness (as provided by mutual location-awareness tools) can be perceived as a “signal”. This “signal” concept sparked some discussion during my PhD defense when one of the reviewer wondered about why employing this “old” metaphor, very tight to the Shannon-model of communication. The argument was about showing that it’s still relevant, I’d be curious to know how this book approach the signal notion using the biology background.

A Survey of Design Issues in Spatial Input by Ken Hickley, Randy Pausch, John C. Goble, and Neal Kassell (1994), Proc. ACM UIST’94 Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, pp. 213-222.

Even though the paper is a bit old, it gives a comprehensive summary of the design issues regarding spatial input, especially regarding the perception of 3D. The authors describes
how users have difficulty understanding three-dimensional space, based on user studies.

“ Anyone who has tried to build a stone wall knows how difficult it is to look at a pile of available stones and decide which stone will best fit into a gap in the wall. There are some individuals, such as experienced stone masons, who have become proficient with this task, but most people simply have to try different stones until one is found that fits reasonably well. In general, people are good at experiencing 3D and experimenting with spatial relationships between real-world objects, but we possess little innate comprehension of 3D space in the abstract. People do not innately understand three dimensional reality, but rather they experience it.
(…)
Previous interfaces have demonstrated a number of issues which may facilitate 3D space perception, including the following: Spatial references, Relative gesture vs. absolute gesture
Two-handed interaction, Multisensory feedback, Physical constraints“

Why do I blog this? looking for references about how 3D is experienced. Why? because this topic is back again (with the SL frenziness) and that I often find myself in situations where I have to explain why 3D s problematic. It’s quite interesting because it engages me in reading old paper from 10-15 years ago, as if everyone forgot the research that has been done.

There’s an intriguing piece in Science news about using the power of online gaming to address big computational challenges such as language translation, refining online search, locating objects in images, etc. The point is to use the time, the energy and the mass of players to solve problems and collect data: “turning playtime to profit”. Moreover, the researchers realize that computers are good at certain things but less at others, hence the idea of tapping into “human brainpower”.

Some examples described on the ACM Technews:

“One example is the ESP Game developed by von Ahn, in which two players come up with words to describe an image, and are awarded points when the words match; in this way, images can be creatively labeled to facilitate easier Web searching. Players are encouraged to choose more creative, less obvious descriptive terms by being restricted from using certain words. Training computers to determine the location of an image of an object is the goal behind Phetch, another game of von Ahn’s in which players search for images that fit certain descriptions in a scavenger hunt scheme. One player or narrator types out a description of an image chosen from a database at random, and then several other players or seekers find the image by using a built-in browser; points are awarded to the narrator every time a search is carried out successfully, while the first seeker to find the image gets points and assumes the role of narrator for the next image. Von Ahn’s latest game, Verbosity, is founded on the concept of building a database of common-sense facts through gameplay. In Verbosity, one player is given a word and presents hints about the word to another player in the form of sentences with blanks where words should go. Von Ahn says all his games have a time limit because he wants participants to play faster and thus generate more data.“

(Via Dr Fish), An article from mechanical engineering magazine (by Kathryn Jablokow) addresses the new rules for solving problems nowadays. Although it’s written for engineers, there are some pertinent elements for other domains. Some excerpts:

“The number of problems we each can solve alone is getting smaller. Not only are there more problems than any one person can handle, but no one person has the brainpower to cover—on his or her own—the wide
range of knowledge and expertise that is so often required
(…)
To gather all the knowledge we need to solve complex problems, we know that we must collaborate. Working together is no longer optional. Paradoxically, in order to collaborate and solve problems effectively, we need to know even more—and about different things.”

The article then describes a very cognitive-centric vision of problem solving (”problem solving level (…) problem solving style”). It’s however very pragmatic and it gives interesting insights about to apply this with some concrete examples/stories. I won’t enter into much details here but it’s basically about problem solving, Adaption-Innovation theory, which states that people differ in their innate preferences for structure in problem solving. Very polemical but the examples are intriging.
Why do I blog this? some good thoughts about collaborative problem solving and design.

Our paper “Partner Modeling Is Mutual”, Sangin, M., Nova, N. Molinari, G and Dillenbourg, P for the CSCL 2007 conference (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) has been accepted.

The paper, that one may categorize as belonging to cognitive science research, basically described our empirical research about how the modeling of partners’ intentions is a mutual process. This research stems from a project we carried out at the lab for the Swiss Research National Fundation.

Abstract: Collaborative learning has been hypothesized to be related to the cognitive effort engaged by co-learners to build a shared understanding. The process of constructing this shared understanding requires each team member to build some kind of representation of the behavior, beliefs, knowledge or intentions of other group members. This contribution reports interesting findings regarding to the process of modeling each other. In two empirical studies, we measured the accuracy of the mutual model, i.e. the difference between what A believes B knows, has done or intends to do and what B actually knows, has done or intends to do. In both studies, we found a significant correlation between the accuracy of A’s model of B and the accuracy of B’s model of A. This leads us to think that the process of modeling one’s partners does not simply reflect individual attitudes or skills but emerges as a property of group interactions. We describe on-going studies that explore these preliminary results.

What a news: Neural ‘extension cord’ developed for brain implants:

A “data cable” made from stretched nerve cells could someday help connect computers to the human nervous system. The modified cells should form better connections with human tissue than the metal electrodes currently used for purposes such as remotely controlling prosthetics. (…) Tests have already shown that electrical signals can be transmitted in both directions along the cord.
(…)
Christopher James, who works on brain-computer interfaces at Southampton University, UK, gives the work a cautious welcome. “This approach does sound like a good idea,” he says. “Although directly attaching electrodes to the brain has been shown to work, the long term effects are not known”.

Why do I blog this? I find intriguing the emphasis on invasive brain-computer interfaces. Though it’s often not necessary (EEG could be another solution as mentionned in the article), there seems to be a conspicuous fascination towards plugging stuff into one’s body.

This week, the WSJ has a critical paper about electronic toys that I found interesting. It starts by reporting the enthusiasm geared towards those devices: the “fusion of technology and personality” of robots, the “Vtech V. Smile Baby Infant Development System claims to go beyond passive developmental videos”… and then criticizes the underlying arguments behind them, questioning their “educational” potential:

two recent studies suggest that the oft-touted educational benefits of such toys are illusory, and child development experts caution that kiddie electronics, even those bought purely for fun, can have negative side effects such as inhibiting creativity and promoting short attention spans.
(…)
A two-year, government-funded study by researchers at the University of Stirling in Scotland found that electronic toys marketed for their supposed educational benefits, such as the LeapFrog LeapPad, an interactive learning activity toy, and the Vtech V provided no obvious benefits to children. “In terms of basic literacy and number skills I don’t think they are more efficient than the more traditional approaches,” researcher Lydia Plowman told the Guardian. Although no Luddite (Ms. Plowman makes the rather perverse recommendation that parents give children their old cellphones so that they can learn to “model” adult behavior with technology)
(…)
At a Boston University conference on language development in November, researchers from Temple University’s Infant Laboratory and the Erikson Institute in Chicago described the results of their research on electronic books. The Fisher-Price toy company, which contributed funding for the study, was not pleased. “Parents who are talking about the content [of stories] with their child while reading traditional books are encouraging early literacy,” says researcher Julia Parish-Morris, “whereas parents and children reading electronic books together are having a severely truncated experience.” Electronic books encouraged a “slightly coercive parent-child interaction,” the study found, and were not as effective in promoting early literacy skills as traditional books.

I also liked this comment:

“A lot of these toys direct the play activity of our children by talking to them, singing to them, asking them to press buttons and levers,” notes Kathy Hirsch-Pasek, co-director of the Temple University Infant Lab, in a recent research summary. “I look for a toy that doesn’t command the child, but lets the child command it.”

Why do I blog this? well those critics are harsh and it certainly reflects one part of the reality. It’s interesting though and they should no be dismissed. However, I am sure there are some relevance like how this tool can encourage new types of behaviors like new forms of “sociality” based on them: for instance the presence of a robot lead to a discussion between kids or the family about its behavior (see “The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit — Twentieth Anniversary Edition” (Sherry Turkle)for that matter). Moreover, the possibility to hack/program some of those toys can be of interest too.

According to this article in Nature (by Thorsten Hansen, Maria Olkkonen, Sebastian Walter & Karl R Gegenfurtner), low-level perceptual mechanisms can be affected by high-level cognitive processes. They showed how memory modulates color appearance: natural fruit objects tend to be perceived in their typical color.

We asked human observers to adjust the color of natural fruit objects until they appeared achromatic. The objects were generally perceived to be gray when their color was shifted away from the observers’ gray point in a direction opposite to the typical color of the fruit. These results show that color sensations are not determined by the incoming sensory data alone, but are significantly modulated by high-level visual memory.

Why do I blog this? first because it is a strange cognitive phenomenon, second because I am always intrigued by the intricacies of cognitive processes (especially when a high level process modulates a low level one). And third, because it’s curious to think about the consequences of such result in design.

Some definitions on the concept of pareidolia (a cousin of apophenia):

“Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (usually an image) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable” (Explore Dictionary of Psychology)

“Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct” (Skeptic’s Dictionary)

The most recurrent example of pareidolia is certainly the jesus’ face on grilled cheese, shrouds, ultrasound scan of a baby in the womb or even trees in LA.

Why do I blog this? I guess I am mesmerized by this concept, and its underlying cognitive basis: how human beings see pattern in objects (at some point it can be worse: Mistaking a House for a Face: Neural Correlates of Misperception in Healthy Humans.

Personally, I prefer when it’s in technology that people are thinking about human’s face (examples from here):

Does such a design make people more confortable using the artifact? What’s the role of pareidolia in design?

As a weak signal about the growing importance of neuropsychology in human-computer interaction, design and ergonomics, there is a workshop called “From Neuropsychology to Neuroergonomics: the Cognitive Continuum” (part of the 2nd Meeting of the European Societies of Neuropsychology), in Toulouse, France, October 19th, 2006 - 2.30 PM - 7.00 PM.

Neuropsychology and Neuroergonomics share:
- The same core, the uncovering of the neural substratum of cognitive and/or sensorimotor performance and the investigation of the cerebral mechanisms underlying the performance, and
- The same goal, the design of better cognitive rehabilitation protocols or training strategies, and/or better human-machine interfaces through the integration of knowledge on cerebral mechanisms.

Neuropsychology is an approach for more “cerebrally inspired” design and HMI. Looking beyond a discrete view of Neuropsychology and Neuroergonomics, the workshop’s goal is to highlight the convergence and cross-fertilization of the two disciplines,

Larges displays and how they are perceived, experienced and used by people is an interesting topic, especially when it comes to the gaming experience. A paper I ran across lately about this issue:

Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P., Pausch, R. (2006): Physically Large Displays Improve Performance on Spatial Tasks, In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 13 (1), 71 - 99 .

The paper describes a series of experiments comparing the performance of users working on a large projected wall display to that of users working on a standard desktop monitor. Results suggest that physically large displays, even at identical visual angles as small displays, increase performance on spatial tasks such as 3D navigation as well as mental map formation and memory.

Why do I blog this? it’s interesting to see how display features can impact cognitive processes for the users.

In his paper “Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction“, Keith M. Murphy examines how “imagining can emerge from a group of
interactants who use many semiotic media,including talk, gestures, and drawings, to imagine something together”. He actually shows how architects imagine the way people move in buildings that do not yet exist. He explains, for that matter, the role of imagination is constituted as a social and face-to-face interaction. An excerpt that I found interesting:

What we have then is all three architects visualizing and enacting the space as if it were a“ real” loading dock to clarify its use and orient the other architects to their understanding of the design.

This has a utilitarian purpose in that when designing large buildings it is extremely important that everyone on the team is on the same page interms of where the design is at any given moment and where it is heading. But it also has more cognitive implications. For the architects, designing a building often requires taking on the perspective of a future user experiencing the building to work out potential design kinks. By talking about a design in groups, an empathetic viewpoint is constructed through the interactive give-and-take flow of the conversation. Talk, gestures, and the drawing under discussion all in combination serve to structure the kinds of things the group can imagine as if they were the users, and this group imagining facilitates getting the job of being an architect done.

Why do I blog this? because it’s another pertinent example of the socio-cognitive processes at stake during a group activity showing that imagination can be more than a solely individualistic cognitive activity.

Murphy, K.M. (2004). Imagination as Joint Activity: The Case of Architectural Interaction, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11 (4), 267-278.

For those who’re wondering about email and potential physiological consequences…

TAYLOR Howard, FIELDMAN George et LAHLOU Saadi, “The impact of a threatening e-mail reprimand on the recipient’s blood pressure”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, January 2005, vol. 20, n°. 1, p. 43-50.

Purpose - This article aims to describe the effects of the communication style of the message sender (threatening or neutral), status of the sender (equal to or higher than the recipient) and the power relationship between sender and recipient (from the same department or not) on the blood pressure of the recipient of an e-mail message

Design/methodology/approach - The study was conducted under controlled laboratory conditions. The experiment was a mixed design, using both within and between subjects variables. The independent variable for the within subjects factor was the task that participants performed. There were three tasks: answering a questionnaire, reading a non-threateningly worded e-mail reprimand, and reading a threateningly worded e-mail reprimand. Although the study used students as participants, the messages they received were from real people in a University College. Discusses the implications in the area of occupational health.

Findings - Diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher when recipients were reading the threateningly worded reprimand compared to reading a non-threateningly worded reprimand. The effect of status on blood pressure was significant but only for recipients in the same department as the message sender. Originality/value

The results add to the evidence that communication style and status can have a direct impact on the recipient’s physiological response.