Mirrored Perception Cognition Action Model in an Interactive Surgery Assist System

  • Jiachun Du
  • Thomas van Rooij
  • Jean-Bernard Martens
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 713)

Abstract

Interaction systems with complex sensors are often required to operate in a social context, and hence need to respect social rules of engagement. We propose that reasoning about such systems, and designing them, can be supported by the mirrored-perception-cognition-action model that we introduce in this paper. We illustrate the model and the associated design approach for the specific case of a surgery assist system containing both a graphical and a tangible user interface. Tests were performed to establish how successful users were in making sense of this sensing system.

Keywords

Complex sensors Social interaction Tangible user interface Leap motion MPCA model 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Matessa, M., Lebiere, C.: ACT-R: a theory of higher level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12(4), 439–462 (1997). http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1204_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellotti, V., Back, M., Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E., Henderson, A., Lopes, C.: Making sense of sensing systems: five questions for designers and researchers. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 415–422. ACM (2002). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=503450
  3. 3.
    Cassimatis, N.L., Trafton, J.G., Bugajska, M.D., Schultz, A.C.: Integrating cognition, perception and action through mental simulation in robots. Robot. Auton. Syst. 49(1), 13–23 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gottlieb, J.: From thought to action: the parietal cortex as a bridge between perception, action, and cognition. Neuron 53(1), 9–16 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haazebroek, P., Van Dantzig, S., Hommel, B.: A computational model of perception and action for cognitive robotics. Cogn. Process. 12(4), 355–365 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kieras, D.E., Meyer, D.E.: An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12(4), 391–438 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motion, L.: Leap Motion (n.d.). https://www.leapmotion.com/. Accessed 16 Sept 2016
  8. 8.
    Neisser, U.: Cognitive Psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [aAc], New York (1967). Nelson, K.: Self and social functions: individual autobiographical memory and collective narrative. Memory 11(2), 12536 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bizzotto, N., Costanzo, A., Bizzotto, L.: Leap motion gesture control with OsiriX in the operating room to control imaging: first experiences during live surgery. Surg. Innov. 1, 2 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Overview of Intel® RealSenseTM SDK | Intel® Software (n.d.). https://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-realsense-sdk. Accessed 16 Sept 2016
  11. 11.
    Ullmer, B., Ishii, H.: Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Syst. J. 39(3), 915–931 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Den Hoven, E., Frens, J., Aliakseyeu, D., Martens, J.-B., Overbeeke, K., Peters, P.: Design research & tangible interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 109–115. ACM (2007). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1226993

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiachun Du
    • 1
  • Thomas van Rooij
    • 1
  • Jean-Bernard Martens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations