Fig 12 - uploaded by Jon May
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
![Fig. 1. Macrotheory and Microtheory for an assembled system [A]...](profile/Jon-May/publication/234761422/figure/fig1/AS:437416285741060@1481299577488/Macrotheory-and-Microtheory-for-an-assembled-system-A-composed-of-basic-interactors_Q320.jpg)
A significant proportion of early HCI research was guided by one very clear vision: that the existing theory base in psychology and cognitive science could be developed to yield engineering tools for use in the interdisciplinary context of HCI design. While interface technologies and heuristic methods for behavioral evaluation have rapidly advanced...
Similar publications
The field of human computer interaction (HCI) is d eeply rooted in cognitive science. But can cognitive science still contribute to the newest developments? This article introduces the recent trends towards "embod ied cognition." Then research on image schemas and their metaphorical extensions is reviewed as an example of how understanding a specia...
The term Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) ensures the reliable interaction between a user and the system, and HCI consists of three parts; user (human), system (computer), and the ways they interact such as the interaction mediums (i.e., physical, graphical and voice interaction). In HCI, numerous methods, models, and theories are used to develop t...
Design-oriented frameworks are a type of Human- Computer Interaction (HCI) discipline knowledge. They are intended to support iterativespecify-and-implement' design practice, by assisting designers to create models of speci® c design problems, within a class of design problem. This paper presents a design-oriented framework for a class of HCI desig...
Reinforcement learning (RL) agents in human-computer interactions applications require repeated user interactions before they can perform well. To address this "cold start" problem, we propose a novel approach of using cognitive models to pre-train RL agents before they are applied to real users. After briefly reviewing relevant cognitive models, w...
This thesis deals with the term 'context' and the aim has been to reason about the term in order to see whether it is possible to reach a satisfactory understanding of the concept. But the thesis is also a journey into human reasoning and conveys a certain view of human cognition. It aims to synthesise results of studies within psychology, cognitiv...
Citations
... To our knowledge, SDT authors have never explicitly specified their understanding of 'macro-theory'. The term could refer to the theory's consideration of different levels of analysis ranging from the micro-level [e.g., neurological correlates of intrinsic motivation 156] to economic and political systems[479,483]; its tenets being "embedded in an organismicdialectical metatheory"[138, p. 229]; or that SDT spans multiple interrelated mini-theories [see36]. We surmise that usage of the term 'macro-theory' in SDT scholarship pertains to all these meanings [see also312, p. 16]. ...
Self-determination theory (SDT), a psychological theory of human motivation, is a prominent paradigm in human-computer interaction (HCI) research on games. However, our prior literature review observed a trend towards shallow applications of the theory. This follow-up work takes a broader view -- examining SDT scholarship on games, a wider corpus of SDT-based HCI games research (N=259), and perspectives from a games industry practitioner conference -- to help explain current applications of SDT. Our findings suggest that perfunctory applications of the theory in HCI games research originate in part from within SDT scholarship on games, which itself exhibits limited engagement with theoretical tenets. Against this backdrop, we unpack the popularity of SDT in HCI games research and identify conditions underlying the theory's current use as an oft-unquestioned paradigm. Finally, we outline avenues for more productive SDT-informed games research and consider ways towards more intentional practices of theory use in HCI.
... Also, human actors have stepped out of the role of worker and "participate in design as a person who brings her entire life to the design" (Bødker, 2006, p. 7). This significant change in HCI direction has made HCI almost a boundless domain (Barnard et al., 2000), whereby the potential downside of this burgeoning growth is a lack of direction in the field (Rogers, 2012, p. 1). ...
Human–computer interaction (HCI) is a multidisciplinary field of research that focuses on the understanding and design of interaction between humans and computers. HCI has its roots in human factors and ergonomics and cognitive sciences, but over the years, it has undergone a variety of deep transformations, by importing a variety of approaches, theories, and methods from other disciplines, like anthropology and sociology. In History of HCI, Theories of HCI, and Methods of HCI sections, the evolution of the discipline, as well as its theories and methods, is described. Moreover, three different promising strands of HCI research are pointed out in the Lines of Research in HCI section, showing the theoretical and methodological complexity that HCI is facing at the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century.
... Finally, two decades ago Barnard et al. (2000) discussed what they call macrotheory. Their point was that a host of local theories would not solve the problems of design; deeper theory is needed that connects different levels of analysis. ...
This essay addresses a foundational topic in applied sciences with interest in design: how do theories inform design? Previous work has attributed theory-use to abduction and deduction. However, design is about creating an intervention, a possible state that does not exist presently, and these accounts fail to explain how theories permit taking this leap. We argue that the practical value of a theory lies in counterfactual thinking. Theories are like “speculation pumps”: they produce (pump) counterfactual thought experiments of the type: If design was , then interaction would be . The more valid these thought experiments are and the better they direct the solution of design problems toward desirable and reliable outcomes, the more useful the theory. Counterfactual thinking sheds new light to design methods and, importantly, can reconcile an underlying tension between design sciences and applied sciences.
... See section 4.2.2 for details. DSE, SE, DE (Barnard et al., 2000) (Fox, 2016) workforce, virtual, and digital resources, among others. It is one of the ARR evolutive overarching characteristics. ...
This thesis explores new systems engineering design needs for evolutive systemarchitectures (eSAR), which are a subset of a new generation of complex hardware-basedsystems, within a context defined by global design stressors such as resource scarcity, andcomplexity. These evolutive system are highly adaptable, aiming towards resourceregeneration, and presenting a highly intelligent baseline. Based upon an extensive literaturereview highlighting key gaps on state-of-the-art design engineering and system engineeringtechniques, a full cycle evolutive development methodology (eSARD) is presented inspiredby natural evolution mechanisms while addressing heritage, and better systemperformances. The holistic eSARD method tackles design, implementation, systemoperations, and overall system optimization of an eSAR.
... It is a theory of broad scope and was developed over several decades of practical research in applied psychology to address, and account for, not only evidence associated with a wide range of experimental results from the psychological laboratory (e.g., Barnard, 1985Barnard, , 1999Su, Bowman, & Barnard, 2011), but also to address real-world phenomena that inherently required theories of broader scope than those confined to explaining laboratory phenomena. These have included analyses of how thought patterns and emotions become dysfunctional in various psychopathologies (e.g., Barnard, 2004;Barnard & Teasdale, 1991;Teasdale & Barnard, 1993); the human use of complex information technologies (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000); and creative processes in the performing arts (see e.g., Barnard & DeLahunta, 2018). As a macrotheory of broad scope, its prior application to cognition, meaning, affect, and creative thinking, as well as detailed analyses of the use of technologies, is important. ...
... Fig. 5.4 provides a means of discussing the differences among approaches at different system levels. In this figure, introduced originally to discuss how best to model the use of modern information technologies (Barnard et al., 2000) but also applied to clinical psychology (Barnard, 2009) and cognitive archaeology (Barnard, 2010a;Barnard et al., 2017), system theory is explored in the vertical dimension. In this vertical dimension, A indexes a whole system, Bs are the main components of that system, and Cs are the constituents of the components. ...
... In this vertical dimension, A indexes a whole system, Bs are the main components of that system, and Cs are the constituents of the components. This is referred to as a "type 1" theory and needs elaborating for the full specification of such theories (again, see Barnard et al., 2000). ICS is a type 1 theory that addresses the behavior of information in the mind. ...
While sticks and stones have broken countless bones and helped provision thousands of generations of hominins, patterns underlying tool making and use may have had profounder consequences. This chapter explores the conjecture that tool use helped lay the foundations of key properties of modern minds: our propositional meaning system; wisdom and intuitions about meanings with their ineffable qualities and links to emotion; and our ability to walk, talk and think about meanings at the same time. We need to react to similar things with similar thoughts and behaviours (generalisation) while reacting to different things with different thoughts and behaviours. Differentiation within the behavioural systems of our precursor species (actions and vocalisations within their physical and social worlds) must have advanced in tandem with differentiation of their mental and neural systems. Tool use clearly contributed to that differentiation. Such differentiation creates new challenges for grasping what mental states underpinning perception, the control of vocal and physical actions, and bodily reactions all have in common. The emergence of two meaning systems in a specific architectural arrangement (Barnard & Teasdale 1991) is one plausible evolutionary response to those challenges that can account for how we think about meaningful abstractions, innovate and multitask.
... Although similar constructs, intolerance of uncertainty generally refers to difficulty tolerating a future situation where as intolerance of ambiguity refers to difficulty tolerating a present moment uncertain situation (Grenier et al., 2005). 6. Macro-theories aim to explain and model how basic psychological components relate in people experiencing psychological distress and those who are not (Barnard, 2004;Barnard et al., 2000). These are broader than micro-theories, which focus on specific constructs, for example, the relationship between cognitive processes and the symptoms of one specific disorder. ...
An ever-growing number of transdiagnostic processes that maintain psychopathology across disorders have been identified. However, such processes are not consistently associated with psychological distress and symptoms. An understanding of what makes such processes pathological is required. One possibility is that individual differences in rigidity in the implementation of these processes determine the degree of psychopathology. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between rigidity/flexibility and transdiagnostic maintenance processes. Initial searches were made for research examining relationships between 18 transdiagnostic processes and rigidity/flexibility. Relationships between rumination, perfectionism, impulsivity and compulsivity, and rigidity/flexibility were systemically reviewed; 50 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies indicated that transdiagnostic cognitive and behavioral maintenance processes and rigidity were correlated, co-occurring, or predictive of each other. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that it is inflexibility in the manner in which processes are employed that makes them pathologically problematic. However, further research is required to test and establish this.
... As I stated above, there are, of course, a number of existing models of interaction already developed in our field. For instance, there are several examples of input-output models for HCI (to name just a few, see Marchionini and Sibert 1991;Boehner et al. 2005;Barnard et al. 2000), not to mention the human processor model (Card et al. 1983); models describing standards for designing good consistent interaction, including the WIMP-standard and other GUI standards (e.g., Dam 1997); and a number of models that describe different specific interaction modalities and interaction paradigms (e.g., Jacob 2006;Ishii and Ullmer 1997;Jacob et al. 1999;Abowd and Mynatt 2000;Bellotti et al. 2002). Furthermore, several recent models of users in relation to advances in the field of HCI include models of human perception of HCI (see, for instance, Kweon et al. 2008;Dalsgaard and Hansen 2008). ...
Computing is increasingly intertwined with our physical world. From smart watches to connected cars, to the Internet of Things and 3D-printing, the trend towards combining digital and analogue materials in design is no longer an exception, but a hallmark for where interaction design is going in general. Computational processing increasingly involves physical materials, computing is increasingly manifested and expressed in physical form, and interaction with these new forms of computing is increasingly mediated via physical materials. Interaction Design is therefore increasingly a material concern. In this book, “The Materiality of Interaction – Notes on the Materials of Interaction Design”, Mikael Wiberg investigates this trend towards material interactions. In doing so he describes how the field of human-computer interaction has moved, through the material turn, from a representation-driven design paradigm, towards a paradigm which he calls material-centered interaction design. Wiberg examines what this emergent paradigm implies for the practice of doing interaction design, he proposes a design method for doing material-centered interaction design, and he discusses the implications for moving forward given an interaction design paradigm that focuses on the materiality of interaction.
... For example, the production of a shell bead could be reconstructed within a cognigram, by analyzing the sequence of behavioral operations involved in the construction of an aesthetic meaning for the shell nacre, the reaction of others towards such a rare item, and the fixation of the item to the body through perforation and stringing. This long-term goal requires practices being decomposed into a series of stages in which specific agents behave within social scenarios, while tools with different qualities are used as modular units to tackle specific sub-problems, such as perforating the item, polishing it, preparing the string, etc. Cognigrams are then mapped onto a more general theoretical level (Barnard et al. 2000;Barnard 2010a), which represents a theory of how behavior and cognition most generally interact within a Bprimate system.^This core level, which constitutes the major premise of a deductive argument, is constructed from research performed in contemporary settings. ...
Evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA) is an emerging discipline that attempts to reconstruct the properties of ancient cognitive systems from the study of the material remains found in the archaeological record. Although there has been substantial interest in this area in recent years, scholars have tended to pay little attention to the methodologies used to formulate their theories. This has fostered an unfortunate situation of incommensurability between competing lines of argument. In this paper, I will attempt to provide a way out of this stagnation, using the methodology of “holistic mapping,” which represents a rational tool for theory validation in ECA. The lack of a shared methodology is a symptom of the wider neglect of deeper epistemological aspects of ECA, which in turn has given rise to the even more problematic questioning of the very foundations of the whole ECA enterprise. The absence of direct access to the ancient mind is associated with barriers to empirical testability, which fosters the production of “just so stories,” therefore evoking the specter of relativism. Building upon the previous methodological considerations, I will attempt to defend the epistemic validity of ECA, by discussing how holistic mapping can lead to the acquisition of reliable knowledge even if the object of science can only be indirectly reconstructed. Firmer epistemological foundations for ECA will be established by contextualizing this methodology within a middle-ground position in archaeological theory defined as “realism.” This epistemological perspective allows rejecting both the narrow empiricism and corrosive relativism currently threatening ECA.
... First, it should be noted that the dynamical systems approach described in this article has many underpinnings in the history of psychology. These include psychological theories that embrace systems thinking, such as the ecological approach (Gibson, 1966), activity theory (Leont'ev, 1981), coordination dynamics (Kelso, 1995;including interpersonal, Richardson et al., 2005including interpersonal, Richardson et al., , 2007, distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1996), groups as complex systems (McGrath et al., 2000), interactive team cognition (Cooke et al., 2013), dynamical systems in team sports (Grehaigne et al., 1997;Bourbousson et al., 2010;Vilar et al., 2012;Cuijpers et al., 2015), non-linear dynamics in human factors and ergonomics (Guastello, 2017), and systems thinking in human factors (Chapanis, 1996) and human-computer interaction (Barnard et al., 2000). What is different about the dynamical systems approach to teams, and what does it offer team psychology? ...
By its very nature, much of teamwork is distributed across, and not stored within, interdependent people working toward a common goal. In this light, we advocate a systems perspective on teamwork that is based on general coordination principles that are not limited to cognitive, motor, and physiological levels of explanation within the individual. In this article, we present a framework for understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems and review our empirical findings on teams as dynamical systems. We proceed by (a) considering the question of why study teams as dynamical systems, (b) considering the meaning of dynamical systems concepts (attractors; perturbation; synchronization; fractals) in the context of teams, (c) describe empirical studies of team coordination dynamics at the perceptual-motor, cognitive-behavioral, and cognitive-neurophysiological levels of analysis, and (d) consider the theoretical and practical implications of this approach, including new kinds of explanations of human performance and real-time analysis and performance modeling. Throughout our discussion of the topics we consider how to describe teamwork using equations and/or modeling techniques that describe the dynamics. Finally, we consider what dynamical equations and models do and do not tell us about human performance in teams and suggest future research directions in this area.
... Evaluate complex tasks at a macro scale of performance [64,65] Research on micro phenomena lacks correspondence with the scale where teams perform complex tasks [66,67] Situated nature, dependent on concrete situations [45]; primary emphasis bears on experts [68] Micro Understand how complex cognitive phenomena are entangled regarding the task execution [45] Allow precise control and measurement [45]; the more we reduce phenomena into elementary components the more general will be the principles [45] Some cognitive phenomena are difficult to examine directly [19]; primary emphasis on routine tasks [68] evolve correspondingly because studies usually do not regard microworlds as a phenomenon of interest. In particular, a tailor-made approach makes it more difficult to standardise the instrument, considering for instance the balance between internal and external validity, the data and contextual information that should be gathered, what constraints to data gathering have to be considered, and their implications to theory building and theory testing. ...
We identify some of the challenges related with conducting research into teamwork, addressing in particular the data gathering problem, where researchers face multiple tensions derived from different viewpoints regarding what data to gather and how to do it. To address this problem, we propose a microworld approach for conducting research into teamwork. We present the main requirements guiding the microworld development, and discuss a set of components that realise the requirements. Then, we discuss a study that used the developed microworld to evaluate a groupware tool, which was designed to support team activities related to infrastructure maintenance. The paper emphasises the range of data gathered with the microworld, and how it contributed to simultaneously evaluate team behaviour and tool design. The paper reflects on the major contributions brought by the microworld approach, emphasising in particular the capacity to gather diverse data, and to combine behaviour and design evaluations. This research contributes to consolidate the microworld approach in teamwork research. It also contributes to reduce the gap between behavioural-oriented and design-oriented research. The combination of the behaviour-oriented and design-oriented views is of particular importance to design science, since it is founded on iterative cycles of development and evaluation.
