Identifying the Nature of Knowledge Using the Pressures Applied to a Computer Mouse

  • Martha E. Crosby
  • Curtis Ikehara
  • Wendy Ark
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)


The nature of knowledge retention is not that a student either knows or doesn’t. Using signal detection theory, the correct and incorrect responses a student provides can each be subdivided into two more levels of knowledge using the student’s confidence of answer correctness. The proposed study will attempt to link confidence of answer correctness to the categorized pressures applied to a computer mouse allowing for the partitioning of responses. Twenty participants that were part of a pedagogical methods study will be retested using a computer-based multiple choice test and pressure sensitive computer mouse. Participants will also rate their confidence of answer correctness. It is hypothesized that the analyzed pressures applied to the computer mouse will indicate the confidence of answer correctness. Using the categorized pressures from the computer mouse allows for the real-time assessment of a student’s knowledge to guide pedagogical follow-up.


knowledge pressure sensitive computer mouse confidence of correctness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Swets, J.A.: Signal detection and recognition by human observers. In: Swets, J.A. (ed.) Contemporary readings, Wiley, Chichester (1964)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, X.: Methods of Identifying Individual Guessers From Item Response Data. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67, 745 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harvey, N.: Confidence in Judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 1(2), 78–82 (1997)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonza´lez-Vallejo, C., Bonham, A.: Aligning Confidence with Accuracy: Revisiting the Role of Feedback. Acta Psychologica 125, 221–239 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E.: Using Real-Time Physiological Monitoring for Assessing Cognitive States. In: Ghinea, G., Chen, S. (eds.) Digital Multimedia Perception and Design, ch. 8, pp. 170–185 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crosby, M.E., Ikehara, C.S.: Using Physiological Measures to Identify Individual Differences in Response to Task Attributes. In: Augmented Cognition International Conference, San Francisco, CA (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E., Chin, D.N.: A Suite of Physiological Sensors for Assessing Cognitive States. In: 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (July 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ikehara, C.S., Crosby, M.E.: Assessing Cognitive Load with Physiological Sensors. In: 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (January 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosby, M.E., Ikehara, C.S.: Biometric Technology for Human Identification Continuous Identity Authentication Using Multimodal Physiological Sensors. In: SPIE Defense and Security Symposium (April 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ikehara, C., Crosby, M.E.: User Identification Based on the Analysis of the Forces Applied by a User to a Computer Mouse. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kona, Hawaii (January 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha E. Crosby
    • 1
  • Curtis Ikehara
    • 1
  • Wendy Ark
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.IBM Almaden Research CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations