9/03 1© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Shared Information and Virtual Surfaces

Stephen C. HayneCap Smith

Leo Vijayasarathy

Colorado State UniversityComputer Information Systems

This research is supported by Dr. Mike Letsky Grant #66001-00-1-8967

9/03 2© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

DCOG(Hutchins)

DCOG(Hutchins)

InfoSharing(Stasser)

InfoSharing(Stasser) Templates

(Gobet & Simon)Templates

(Gobet & Simon)

RPD(Klein)RPD

(Klein)

EBR(Pennington

& Hastie)

EBR(Pennington

& Hastie)Transacti

veMemory(Wegner)

Transactive

Memory(Wegner)

StimulatingStructures

(Grasse)

StimulatingStructures

(Grasse)

Awareness

(Dourish)

Awareness

(Dourish)

Shared Mental Models(Cannon-Bowers)

Shared Mental Models(Cannon-Bowers)

Collaboration and Cognition

9/03 3© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

ResponseSelection

Stimulating Structure

Situation

Assessment ExecutionPattern

Communication

(Cognitive Chunk or Template)

Team Recognition Primed Decision Making

Collaboration and Cognition

• Knowledge is not action. • Knowledge is situational. • Action is in the situation. (Peter Keen)

9/03 4© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

The Model Human Processor(from Card, Moran, and Newell)

9/03 5© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Multiple Independent Channels of Working Memory(Baddeley)

9/03 6© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Memory Chunks(Simon, etc.)

9/03 7© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Template Theory

• Recent refinement of memory chunks (Gobet and Simon, 1996, 1998, 2000)

• Experienced people create complex structures called “templates”

• Templates have a core, slots and linkages to other templates which facilitate fast access to long term memory

• Templates can store at least 10 items and are often labeled

9/03 8© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Chess Template

9/03 9© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Template Creation

• Goal Oriented: a deliberate, conscious process (explicit)

• Perceptual: a continuous, automatic process (implicit)

• Perceptual dominates in many areas, i.e. verbal learning, chess expertise and problem solving. (Gobet et al., 2001)

9/03 11© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

ResponseSelection

Situation

Assessment ExecutionPattern

Communication

Team Recognition Primed Decision Making

Collaboration and Cognition

SLOT

CORE

9/03 13© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Experimental Design

Tool

Training

Implicit/Item

(20)

Implicit/Chunk

(6)

Explicit/Item

(10)

Explicit/Chunk

(13)

9/03 14© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Hypotheses• H1: In a pattern-recognition task, the

outcome quality of teams supported with a chunk-sharing tool will be greater than the outcome quality of teams supported with a discrete-item tool.

• H2: In a pattern-recognition task, the outcome quality of the teams with implicit training will be greater than the outcome quality of the teams with explicit training.

9/03 15© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

• Cooperative 3-Player Game

• Each player has 7 Tokens (numbered 1-7)

• Opponent has asymmetric resources – Patterns: Definitive, Equivocal, Uncertain

• Team places tokens so total >= opponent

• Incentive– Points in each trial ($.50/point/person)

– Time of play (countdown $1/person starting @ 1 minute)

• Play is interactive

Decision Game

9/03 16© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

• Outcome Quality: the overall measure of team performance. It was assessed by computing the number of regions won by a team in a trial.

Dependent Measure

9/03 17© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Revealed InformationRevealed Information

Template Label Indication with

Confidence

Template Label Indication with

Confidence

9/03 18© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Patterns

1

19

20

9

14

1

1

1

19

20

14

1

1

10

1

19

20

14

1

1

1

9 10 14Template Labels

9/03 19© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Our Patterns as Templates

1

19

20

9

14

1

1

1

19

20

14

1

1

10

1

19

20

14

1

1

1

9 10 14

Core Slot

Template Labels

9/03 20© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Experimental Setting

9/03 21© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

• Demographics:– 73.7% Male (sophomores and seniors)

– Average Age: 23

• Subjects were paid ~ $2000…

Data Collected

9/03 22© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Results - Descriptive

Training Tool Mean Std. Dev. N

IT IS 6.26 .786 119

CS 6.86 .543 36

Total 6.40 .778 155

ET IS 6.89 .315 55

CS 6.65 .599 78

Total 6.75 .514 133

Total IS 6.46 .734 174

CS 6.72 .588 114

Total 6.56 .691 288

9/03 23© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Results - Anova

Source df Mean Square

F Sig.

Training (IT vs. ET) 1 2.67 6.51 .011

Tool (IS vs. CS) 1 1.97 4.81 .029

Training * Tool 1 10.44 25.52 .000

9/03 24© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Summary

• Our Stimulating Structure (chunk), mapped to cognitive templates/chunks was an effective pattern sharing tool.

• Perceptual/Implicit training is better than Goal-Oriented/Explicit training for pattern recognition.

• Cognitive fit between training and tool is important.

9/03 25© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Summary

• Our Stimulating Structure (chunk), mapped to cognitive templates/chunks was an effective pattern sharing tool.

• In the pattern-recognition task domain, we recommend creating tools for sharing “labeled” patterns to facilitate shared cognition.

9/03 26© Hayne, Smith and Vijayasarathy (2005)

Questions?