User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 21, Issue 4–5, pp 441–484 | Cite as

A user modeling approach for reasoning about interaction sensitive to bother and its application to hospital decision scenarios

  • Robin Cohen
  • Hyunggu JungEmail author
  • Michael W. Fleming
  • Michael Y. K. Cheng
Original Paper


In this paper, we present a framework for interacting with users that is sensitive to the cost of bother and then focus on its application to decision making in hospital emergency room scenarios. We begin with a model designed for reasoning about interaction in a single-agent single-user setting and then expand to the environment of multiagent systems. In this setting, agents consider both whether to ask other agents to perform decision making and at the same time whether to ask questions of these agents. With this fundamental research as a backdrop, we project the framework into the application of reasoning about which medical experts to interact with, sensitive to possible bother, during hospital decision scenarios, in order to deliver the best care for the patients that arrive. Due to the real-time nature of the application and the knowledge-intensive nature of the decisions, we propose new parameters to include in the reasoning about interaction and sketch their usefulness through a series of examples. We then include a set of experimental results confirming the value of our proposed approach for reasoning about interaction in hospital settings, through simulations of patient care in those environments. We conclude by pointing to future research to continue to extend the model for reasoning about interaction in multiagent environments for the setting of time-critical care in hospital settings.


Reasoning about interaction Modeling bother Multiagent systems Hospital decision making Coordination of teams of health professionals Choosing medical experts 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAAI: Call for papers. Technical report SS-99-06. In: AAAI Spring Symposium on Agents with Adjustable Autonomy, Stanford, CA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, E., Trafton, J.: Task interruption: Resumption lag and the role of cues. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2004), Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 42–47 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Ardissono, L., Lombardo, A., Sestero, D.: A flexible approach to cooperative response generation in information-seeking dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Columbus, OH, USA, pp. 274–276 (1993)Google Scholar
  4. Bailey B.P., Iqbal S.T.: Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 14(4), 1–28 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey, B., Konstan, J., Carlis, J.: The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In: Proceedings of Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT’01, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 593–601 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. Barber K., Gamba I., Martin C.: Representing and analyzing adaptive decision making frameworks. In: Hexmoor, H., Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. (eds) Agent Autonomy, pp. 243–280. Kluwer, Norwell (2003)Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M., Dengler, D., Paul, G.: Instructible agents for web mining. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 21–28 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. Carberry S., Chu-Carroll J., Elzer S.: Constructing and utilizing a model of user preferences in collaborative consultation dialogues. Comput. Intell. 5(3), 185–217 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, D., Vertegaal, R.: Using mental load for managing interruptions in physiologically attentive user interfaces. In: CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, pp. 1513–1516. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  10. Cheng, M.: A hybrid transfer of control approach to designing adjustable autonomy multiagent systems. Master of Mathematics Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, M., Cohen, R.: A hybrid transfer of control model for adjustable autonomy multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’05—Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 2005, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 1149–1150 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Chittaro, L., Carchietti, E., Marco, L.D., Zampa, A.: Personalised emergency medical assistance for disabled people. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 21 (this issue) (2011)Google Scholar
  13. Colineau, N., Paris, C.: Motivating reflection about health within the family: the use of goal setting and tailored feedback. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 21 (this issue) (2011)Google Scholar
  14. Fleming, M.: Reasoning about interaction in mixed-initiative artificial intelligence systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Waterloo (2003)Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, M.: The use of increasingly specific user models in the design of mixed-initiative systems. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada, pp. 434–438 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. Fleming, M., Cohen, R.: A decision procedure for autonomous agents to reason about interaction with humans. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2004 Spring Symposium on Interaction Between Humans and Autonomous Systems Over Extended Operation, San Jose, CA, USA, pp. 81–86 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S., Atkeson, C., Avrahami, D.: Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. In: Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, pp. 257–264, ACM Press, New York (2004a)Google Scholar
  18. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S.E., Lai, J.: Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility. In: CHI ’04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, pp. 207–214 (2004b)Google Scholar
  19. Hexmoor, H., Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C. (eds): Agent Autonomy. Kluwer, Norwell (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Horvitz, E., Apacible, J.: Learning and reasoning about interruption. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI’03), Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 20–27. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Horvitz, E., Koch, P., Kadie, C., Jacobs, A.: Coordinate: probabilistic forecasting of presence and availability. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’02), Edmonton, AB, Canada, pp. 224–233. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco (2002)Google Scholar
  22. Iqbal, S.T., Bailey, B.P.: Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In: CHI ’05: CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 1489–1492 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Kapoor, A., Horvitz, E.: Experience sampling for building predictive user models: a comparative study. In: CHI ’08: Proceeding of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, Italy, pp. 657–666 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. Lindgren, H.: Towards personalized decision support in the dementia domain based on clinical practice guidelines. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 21 (this issue) (2011)Google Scholar
  25. Maheswaran, R., Tambe, M., Varakantham, P., Myers, K.: Adjustable autonomy challenges in personal assistant agents: a position paper. In: Agents and Computational Autonomy, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 187–194 (2003)Google Scholar
  26. McCrickard D., Catrambone R., Chewar C., Stasko J.: Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 58(5), 547–582 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Myers, K., Morley, D.: Directing agent communities: an initial framework. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI-01 Workshop Autonomy, Delegation and Control: Interacting with Autonomous Agents, Seattle, WA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  28. Myers K., Morley D.: Policy-based agent directability. In: Hexmoor, H., Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. (eds) Agent Autonomy, Kluwer, Norwell (2003)Google Scholar
  29. Paris C.: Responding to a user’s domain knowledge: incorporating the user’s level of expertise into a generation system. Comput. Intell. 7(2), 71–93 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plant, D.: hSITE: healthcare support through information technology enhancements. NSERC Strategic Research Network Proposal (2008)Google Scholar
  31. Raskutti B., Zukerman I.: Generating queries and replies during information-seeking interactions. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 47(6), 689–734 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Scerri, P., Pynadath, D., Tambe, M.: Why the elf acted autonomously: towards a theory of adjustable autonomy. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’02, Bologna, Italy, pp. 857–864. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  33. Schreckenghost, D., Martin, C., Bonasso, P., Kortenkamp, D., Milam, T., Thronesbery, C.: Supporting group interaction among humans and autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of AAAI02 Workshop on Autonomy, Delegation and Control: From Inter-Agent to Groups, Edmonton, AB, Canada, pp. 361–369. AAAI Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  34. van Beek, P., Cohen, R.: Resolving plan ambiguity for cooperative response generation. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pp. 938–944 (1991)Google Scholar
  35. Vertegaal, R.: Attentive user interfaces. In: Special Issue on Attentive User Interfaces, Communications of the ACM, vol. 46. pp. 30–33. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  36. Walji, M., Brixey, J., Johnson-Throop, K., Zhang, J.: A theoretical framework to understand and engineer persuasive interruptions. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2004), Chicago, IL, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  37. Wu D.: Active acquisition of user models: implications for decision-theoretic dialog planning and plan recognition. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 1(3–4), 149–172 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Cohen
    • 1
  • Hyunggu Jung
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Michael W. Fleming
    • 3
  • Michael Y. K. Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Cheriton School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations