George E. Raptis
Christina Katsini
Marios Belk
Christos Fidas
Nikolaos Avouris
ABSTRACT
Recent research provides evidence that individual differences in human cognitive styles affect user performance and experience in diverse application domains. However, state-of-the-art elicitation methods of cognitive styles require researchers to apply explicit, in-lab, and time-consuming "paper-and-pencil" techniques, rendering real-time integration of cognitive styles? elicitation impractical in interactive system design. Aiming to elaborate an implicit elicitation method of cognitive styles, this paper reports two feasibility studies based on an eye-tracking multifactorial model. In both studies, participants performed visual activities of varying characteristics, and the eye-tracking analysis revealed quantitative differences on visual behavior among individuals with different cognitive styles. Based on these differences, a series of classification experiments were conducted, and the results revealed that gaze-based implicit elicitation of cognitive styles in real-time is feasible, which could be used by interactive systems to adapt to the users' cognitive needs and preferences, to better assist them, and improve their performance and experience.
- Maria Kozhevnikov 2007. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin. 133, 3 (2007), 464--481.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Nikos Tsianos, Panagiotis Germanakos, Zacharias Lekkas, Costas Mourlas, and George Samaras 2009. Eye-Tracking Users' Behavior in Relation to Cognitive Style within an E-learning Environment. 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (Jul. 2009), 329--333. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dereck Toker, Cristina Conati, Ben Steichen, and Giuseppe Carenini 2013. Individual user characteristics and information visualization: Connecting the dots through eye tracking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. (2013), 295--304. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marios Belk, Christos Fidas, Panagiotis Germanakos, and George Samaras 2015. Do human cognitive differences in information processing affect preference and performance of CAPTCHA? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 84, (2015), 1--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Franco Mawad, Marcela Trías, Ana Giménez, Alejandro Maiche, and Gastón Ares 2015. Influence of cognitive style on information processing and selection of yogurt labels: Insights from an eye-tracking study. Food Research International. 74, (2015), 1--9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Khamsum Kinley, Dian Tjondronegoro, Helen Partridge, and Sylvia Edwards 2012. Human-computer interaction: the impact of users' cognitive styles on query reformulation behaviour during web searching. Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on - OzCHI '12 (New York, New York, USA, 2012), 299--307. Google ScholarDigital Library
- George E. Raptis, Christos A. Fidas, and Nikolaos M. Avouris 2016. Do Field Dependence-Independence Differences of Game Players Affect Performance and Behaviour in Cultural Heritage Games? Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play - CHI PLAY '16 (New York, New York, USA, 2016), 38--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard Riding and Indra Cheema 1991. Cognitive Styles--an overview and integration. Educational Psychology. 11, 3--4 (Jan. 1991), 193--215.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Herman A. Witkin 1950. Individual Differences in Ease of Perception of Embedded Figures. Journal of Personality. 19, 1 (Sep. 1950), 1--15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Herman. A. Witkin, Carol A. Moore, Donald R. Goodenough, and Patricia W. Cox 1975. Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and their Educational Implications. ETS Research Bulletin Series. 1975, 2 (Dec. 1975), 1--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher W. Allinson and John Hayes 1996. The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition-Analysis For Organizational Research. Journal of Management Studies. 33, 1 (Jan. 1996), 119--135.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Patanella et al. 2011. Cognitive Styles. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development. Springer US. 382--383.Google Scholar
- Philip K. Oltman, Evelyn Raskin, and Herman A. Witkin 1971. Group Embedded Figures Test. Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
- George E. Raptis, Christos A. Fidas, and Nikolaos M. Avouris 2016. Using Eye Tracking to Identify Cognitive Differences: A Brief Literature Review. 20th Pan-Hellenic Conference in Informatics (Patras, Greece, 2016). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Gütl, Maja Pivec, Christian Trummer, Victor Manuel García-Barrios, Felix Mödritscher, Juergen Pripfl, and Martin Umgeher 2005. Adele (adaptive e-learning with eye-tracking): Theoretical background, system architecture and application scenarios. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 8, 2 (2005).Google Scholar
- Efi A. Nisiforou and Andrew Laghos 2013. Do the eyes have it? Using eye tracking to assess students cognitive dimensions. Educational Media International. 50, 4 (Dec. 2013), 247--265.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Efi Nisiforou and Andrew Laghos 2016. Field Dependence--Independence and Eye Movement Patterns: Investigating Users' Differences Through an Eye Tracking Study. Interacting with Computers. 28, 4 (Jun. 2016), 407--420.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Victor Manuel García Barrios, Christian Gütl, Alexandra M. Preis, Keith Andrews, Maja Pivec, Felix Mödritscher, and Christian Trummer 2004. AdELE: A Framework for Adaptive E-Learning through Eye Tracking. Applied Sciences. (2004).Google Scholar
- Efi A. Nisiforou, Eleni Michailidou, and Andrew Laghos 2014. Using Eye Tracking to Understand the Impact of Cognitive Abilities on Search Tasks. 46--57.Google Scholar
- Ben Steichen, Giuseppe Carenini, and Cristina Conati 2013. User-adaptive information visualization. Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces - IUI '13 (New York, New York, USA, 2013), 317. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marios Belk, Efi Papatheocharous, Panagiotis Germanakos, and George Samaras 2013. Modeling users on the World Wide Web based on cognitive factors, navigation behavior and clustering techniques. Journal of Systems and Software. 86, 12 (Dec. 2013), 2995--3012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sherry Y. Chen and Xiaohui Liu 2008. An Integrated Approach for Modeling Learning Patterns of Students in Web-Based Instruction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 15, 1 (May 2008), 1--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yi Wang, Jalal Mahmud, and Taikun Liu 2016. Understanding Cognitive Styles from User-Generated Social Media Content. Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016) (Cologne, Germany, 2016).Google Scholar
- Chu-Han Chan, Chen-Wei Hsieh, and Sherry Y. Chen 2014. Cognitive styles and the use of electronic journals in a mobile context. Journal of Documentation. 70, 6 (2014), 997--1014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ben Steichen, Michael M.a Wu, Dereck Toker, Cristina Conati, and Giuseppe Carenini 2014. Te,Te,Hi,Hi: Eye gaze sequence analysis for informing user-adaptive information visualizations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 8538, (2014), 183--194.Google Scholar
- Anatoly Yelizarov and Dennis Gamayunov 2014. Adaptive Visualization Interface That Manages User's Cognitive Load Based on Interaction Characteristics. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction - VINCI '14 (New York, New York, USA, 2014), 1--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andreas Demetriou, George Spanoudis, Michael Shayer, Antigoni Mouyi, Smaragda Kazi, and Maria Platsidou 2013. Cycles in speed-working memory-G relations: Towards a developmental--differential theory of the mind. Intelligence. 41, 1 (Jan. 2013), 34--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Kirton 1976. Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61, 5 (1976), 622--629.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charoula Angeli, Nicos Valanides, and Paul Kirschner 2009. Field dependence--independence and instructional-design effects on learners' performance with a computer-modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior. 25, 6 (Nov. 2009), 1355--1366. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dane M. Chapman and Judith G. Calhoun 2006. Validation of learning style measures: implications for medical education practice. Medical Education. 40, 6 (Jun. 2006), 576--583.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Shinar, E.D. McDowell, M.J. Rackoff, and T.H. Rockwell 1978. Field dependence and driver visual search behavior. Human Factors. 20, 5 (1978), 553--560.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peter Wittek, Ying-Hsang Liu, Sándor Darányi, Tom Gedeon, and Ik Soo Lim 2016. Risk and Ambiguity in Information Seeking: Eye Gaze Patterns Reveal Contextual Behavior in Dealing with Uncertainty. Frontiers in Psychology. 7, (Nov. 2016).Google Scholar
- Andrew T. Duchowski 2007. Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Springer London. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Licheng Shi, Yuling Hu, and Jiali Wang 2016. Effects of cognitive styles on eye fixations: Evidence from drivers' eye movements. International Journal of Psychology. 51, 1153 (2016).Google Scholar
- Shi Zhuomin and Zheng Wanyi 2014. An Eye-tracking Study on the Differences Between Two Cognitive Styles of Individuals in Reading Advertising. Journal of Marketing Science. 10, 3 (2014), 128--145.Google Scholar
- James L.C. Wijnen and Cees J. Groot 1984. An eye movement analysis system (EMAS) for the identification of cognitive processes on figural tasks. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 16, 3 (May 1984), 277--281.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ming-Shiunn Huang and Brian Byrne 1978. Cognitive style and lateral eye movements. British Journal of Psychology. 69, 1 (1978), 85--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Solé Puig, Laura Puigcerver, J. Antonio Aznar-Casanova, and Hans Supèr 2013. Difference in Visual Processing Assessed by Eye Vergence Movements. PLoS ONE. 8, 9 (Sep. 2013), e72041.Google Scholar
- Kerstin Gidlöf, Annika Wallin, Richard Dewhurst, and Kenneth Holmqvist 2013. Using eye tracking to trace a cognitive process: Gaze behaviour during decision making in a natural environment. Journal of Eye Movement Research. 6, 1 (2013).Google ScholarCross Ref
- George E. Raptis, Christos A. Fidas, and Nikolaos M. Avouris 2016. Differences of Field Dependent/Independent Gamers on Cultural Heritage Playing: Preliminary Findings of an Eye--Tracking Study. 199--206.Google Scholar
- Martha E. Crosby and W. Wesley Peterson 1991. Using Eye Movements to Classify Search Strategies. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting. 35, 20 (Sep. 1991), 1476--1480.Google Scholar
- Rodney C. Conklin, Walter Muir, and Frederick J. Boersma 1968. Field Dependency-Independency and Eye-Movement Patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 26, 1 (Feb. 1968), 59--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sukru Eraslan, Yeliz Yesilada, and Simon Harper 2016. Eye tracking scanpath analysis on web pages. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications - ETRA '16 (New York, New York, USA, 2016), 103--110. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krzysztof Krejtz, Andrew Duchowski, Tomasz Szmidt, Izabela Krejtz, Fernando González Perilli, Ana Pires, Anna Vilaro, and Natalia Villalobos 2015. Gaze Transition Entropy. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception. 13, 1 (Dec. 2015), 1--20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Hall, Eibe Frank, Geoffrey Holmes, Bernhard Pfahringer, Peter Reutemann, and Ian H. Witten 2009. The WEKA data mining software. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter. 11, 1 (Nov. 2009), 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oleg V Komogortsev, Denise V Gobert, Sampath Jayarathna, Do Hyong Koh, and Sandeep M. Gowda 2010. Standardization of Automated Analyses of Oculomotor Fixation and Saccadic Behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 57, 11 (Nov. 2010), 2635--2645.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammad Khatib and Rasoul Mohammad Hosseinpur 2011. On the Validity of the Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT). Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2, 3 (May 2011).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kurt Gottschaldt 1938. Gestalt factors and repetition. A source book of Gestalt psychology. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company. 109--135.Google Scholar
- George E. Raptis, Christos A. Fidas, and Nikolaos M. Avouris 2017. On Implicit Elicitation of Cognitive Strategies using Gaze Transition Entropies in Pattern Recognition Tasks. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17 (New York, New York, USA, 2017), 1993--2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rachna Dhamija and Adrian Perrig 2000. Deja Vu-A User Study: Using Images for Authentication. USENIX Security Symposium (2000), 4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin Mihajlov and Borka Jerman-Blažič 2011. On designing usable and secure recognition-based graphical authentication mechanisms. Interacting with Computers. 23, 6 (Nov. 2011), 582--593. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert Biddle, Sonia Chiasson, and P.C. Van Oorschot 2012. Graphical passwords. ACM Computing Surveys. 44, 4 (Aug. 2012), 1--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yao Ma, Jinjuan Feng, Libby Kumin, and Jonathan Lazar 2013. Investigating User Behavior for Authentication Methods. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing. 4, 4 (Jul. 2013), 1--27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christina Katsini, Christos Fidas, Marios Belk, Nikolaos Avouris, and George Samaras 2017. Influences of Users' Cognitive Strategies on Graphical Password Composition. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '17 (New York, New York, USA, 2017), 2698--2705. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Using Eye Gaze Data and Visual Activities to Infer Human Cognitive Styles: Method and Feasibility Studies
Recommendations
Eye Gaze-driven Prediction of Cognitive Differences during Graphical Password Composition
IUI '18: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User InterfacesEvidence suggests that individual cognitive differences affect users' memorability, visual behavior, and graphical passwords' security. Such knowledge denotes the added value of personalizing graphical password schemes towards the unique cognitive ...
Inferring Cognitive Style from Eye Gaze Behavior During Information Visualization Usage
UMAP '20: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and PersonalizationInformation Visualization is a key technique to assist users in data analysis tasks, by creating visual representations of data to amplify human cognition. However, while human cognitive abilities and styles have been shown to differ significantly, ...
Subtle gaze direction
This article presents a novel technique that combines eye-tracking with subtle image-space modulation to direct a viewer's gaze about a digital image. We call this paradigm subtle gaze direction. Subtle gaze direction exploits the fact that our ...
Comments