Abstract

Eye tracking technology is a prospective tool for augmenting cognition in real-time in response to screen navigation and other eye movements that can be monitored. This paper examines eye movements associated with differences in problem complexity. The experiment utilized constraint satisfaction problems of differing difficulty measured by the number of steps necessary to complete and the relative time required to solve it. Participants were observed and tested through an eye-tracking experiment to see if correlations between visual navigation and problem complexity were present. Eye movement patterns, in particular pupil size, have been used to measure cognitive load in other contexts [6-9]. The results showed overall increases in fixations and pupil size that corresponded to increases in problem complexity.

Keywords

Cognitive load eye tracking analytical reasoning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Greeno, J.G.: Process of understanding in problem solving. In: Castellan, N.J., Pisoni, D.B., Potts, G.R. (eds.) Cognitive theory, vol. 2, pp. 43–83. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1977)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novick, L.R., Bassok, M.: Problem Solving, ch. 14. In: Holyoak, K.J., Morrison, R.G. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook or Thinking and Reasoning, pp. 321–350. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jonassen, D.: Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research on Technology Education 35, 362–381 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Narayanan, N.H.: Technical Report CSE97-06: Diagrammatic Communication: A Taxonomic Overview. Auburn University (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Bruggen, J.M., Kirschner, P.A.: Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In: Andriessen, J., Baker, M., Suthers, D. (eds.) Arguing to Learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, vol. 1, pp. 177–203. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitts, P.M., Jones, R.E., Milton, J.L.: Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument-landing approaches. Aeronautical Engineering Review 9, 24–29 (1950)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marshall, S.P.: The Index of Cognitive Activity: Measuring cognitive workload. In: Proceedings IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, pp. 7.5–7.9. IEEE, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D.: Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1973)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Gerven, P.W.M., Paas, F.G.W.C., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Schmidt, H.G.: Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and Instruction 12, 87–105 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurel A. King
    • 1
  1. 1.Communication and Information SciencesUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations