Advertisement

Measuring and Explaining Cognitive Load During Design Activities: A Fine-Grained Approach

  • Barbara Weber
  • Manuel Neurauter
  • Andrea Burattin
  • Jakob Pinggera
  • Christopher Davis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 25)

Abstract

Recent advances in neuro-physiological measurements resulted in reliable and objective measures of Cognitive Load (CL), for example, using pupillary responses. However, continuous measurement of CL in software design activities, for example, conceptual modeling, has received little attention. In this paper, we present the progress of our work intended to close this gap by continuously measuring cognitive load during design activities. This work aims at advancing our understanding of WHEN and WHY designers face challenges. For this, we attempt to explore and explain the occurrence of CL using fine-granular units of analysis (e.g., type of subtasks, evolution of design artifact’s quality, and manner of technology use). We expect implications for the future development of intelligent software systems, which are aware WHEN a particular designer experiences challenges, but also WHY challenges occur.

Keywords

Business process management Process modeling Process model creation Eye tracking Cognitive load 

References

  1. 1.
    Chen, F., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Yu, K., Arshad, S.Z., Khawaji, A., Conway, D.: Eye-Based Measures, pp. 75–85. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hungerford, B.C., Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W.: Reviewing software diagrams: a cognitive study. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30, 82–96 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haisjackl, C., Zugal, S., Soffer, P., Hadar, I., Reichert, M., Pinggera, J., Weber, B.: Making sense of declarative process models: common strategies and typical pitfalls. In: Proceeding of Conference on BPMDS’13, pp. 2–17 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marculescu, B., Poulding, S.M., Feldt, R., Petersen, K., Torkar, R.: Tester interactivity makes a difference in search-based software testing: a controlled experiment. Inf. Softw. Technol. 78, 66–82 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knapen, T., de Gee, J.W., Brascamp, J., Nuiten, S., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Theeuwes, J.: Cognitive and ocular factors jointly determine pupil responses under equiluminance. PLoS ONE 11, 1–13 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Recker, J.C., Safrudin, N., Rosemann, M.: How novices design business processes. Inf. Syst. 37, 557–573 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soffer, P., Kaner, M., Wand, Y.: Towards understanding the process of process modeling: theoretical and empirical considerations. In: Proceedings of conference on ER-BPM’11, pp. 357–69 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caputo, K.: CMM Implementation Guide: Choreographing Software Process Improvement (Unisys Series). Addison-Wesley, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neurauter, M., Pinggera, J., Martini, M., Burattin, A., Furtner, M., Sachse, P., Weber, B.: The influence of cognitive abilities and cognitive load on business process models and their creation. In: Proceedings of Conference on NeuroIS’15, pp. 107–115 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Weber, B.: Investigating the Process of Process Modeling with Cheetah Experimental Platform. In: Proceedings of Conference on ER-POIS’10, pp. 13–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber, B., Neurauter, M., Pinggera, J., Zugal, S., Furtner, M., Martini, M., Sachse, P.: Measuring cognitive load during process model creation. In: Proceedings of Conference on NeuroIS’15, pp. 129–136 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zugal, S., Pinggera, J., Neurauter, M., Maran, T., Weber, B.: Cheetah experimental platform web 1.0: cleaning pupillary data. Technical report (arXiv.org)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pinggera, J.: The process of process modeling. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, Department of Computer Science (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 20, 273–297 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber, B., Pinggera, J., Neurauter, M., Zugal, S., Martini, M., Furtner, M., Sachse, P., Schnitzer, D.: Fixation patterns during process model creation: initial steps toward neuro-adaptive process modeling environments. In: Proceedings of Conference on HICSS’16, pp. 600–609 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burattin, A., Kaiser, M., Neurauter, M., Weber, B.: Eye tracking meets the process of process modeling: a visual analytic approach. In: Proceedings of Conference on TAProViz’16 (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xie, B., Salvendy, G.: Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple tasks environments. Int. J. Cogn. Ergonom. 4, 213–242 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burattin, A., Bernstein, V., Neurauter, M., Soffer, P., Weber, B.: Detection and quantification of flow consistency in business process models. Softw. Syst. Model., pp. 1–22 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haisjackl, C., Burattin, A., Soffer, P., Weber, B.: Visualization of the evolution of layout metrics for business process models. In: Proceedings of Conference on TAProViz’16 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burton-Jones, A., Straub, D.W.: Reconceptualizing system usage: an approach and empirical test. Inf. Syst. Res. 17, 228–246 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Weber
    • 1
    • 2
  • Manuel Neurauter
    • 2
  • Andrea Burattin
    • 2
  • Jakob Pinggera
    • 2
  • Christopher Davis
    • 3
  1. 1.Technical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark
  2. 2.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations