Analytical Model Based Evaluation Of Human Machine Interfaces Using Cognitive Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive models allow predicting some aspects of utility and usability of human machine interfaces (HMI), and simulating the interaction with these interfaces. The action of predicting is based on a task analysis, which investigates what a user is required to do in terms of actions and cognitive processes to achieve a task. Task analysis facilitates the understanding of the system-s functionalities. Cognitive models are part of the analytical approaches, that do not associate the users during the development process of the interface. This article presents a study about the evaluation of a human machine interaction with a contextual assistant-s interface using ACTR and GOMS cognitive models. The present work shows how these techniques may be applied in the evaluation of HMI, design and research by emphasizing firstly the task analysis and secondly the time execution of the task. In order to validate and support our results, an experimental study of user performance is conducted at the DOMUS laboratory, during the interaction with the contextual assistant-s interface. The results of our models show that the GOMS and ACT-R models give good and excellent predictions respectively of users performance at the task level, as well as the object level. Therefore, the simulated results are very close to the results obtained in the experimental study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".