GETPSYCHED | Category Archives: Behavioral Science

Human-Computer Interaction… I thought this blog was about psychology?

Over the course of a typical day, how often do you interact with computers? How are you reading this post? You might be reading this blog on your tablet, music playing through headphones connected to the smartphone in your pocket, as you sit on a computer-controlled train headed to school. Once there, you might sit in a computer lab to access a web-based library information system to find research for your final presentation. Perhaps you scanned a monthly pass to activate the turnstile and board the train for your commute? Maybe you printed several journal articles from an online database, or photocopied a chapter from a book to reference later for your research paper?

In a typical day, many devices require some form of interaction from the user in order to help carry out desired tasks; whether swiping an access card, pressing an icon on a touchscreen, pushing a button on a copier, or moving a pointing device across a screen. Ideally these devices perform their functions effectively and with ease for the user. But how many times have you sit in front of a screen—a computer, a copier, your phone—annoyed and frustrated? More often than not, users have problems understanding and operating these devices, making tasks undesirable, or perhaps impossible. The more complex the task, the more complex the system. The more complex the system, the greater need to focus on user interaction.

The field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) focuses on improving the usability of systems and applications though analysis and design [1]. But what does HCI have to do with psychology?

The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction

HCI is an interdisciplinary field involving the study, design, planning, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computer systems[2]; it is an intersection of technology, computer science, information systems, graphic and industrial design, human factors, sociology, behavioral science and cognitive psychology[3]. HCI applies aspects of each field to the entire system: the device, the interface, the context and the user.

An important aspect of HCI considers the potential behavior of user, and covers many aspects of cognition. HCI attempts to optimizes the relationship between user interpretations and the intent of the design and functions of the interface. The field attempts to minimize incorrect interpretations, and ease interaction though the analysis of a user’s perceptions, attention, memory, learning process, communications, problem solving and decision making. These are interdependent processes. Related cognitive research and knowledge has helped guide the design of computers and their interfaces in numerous ways[2]. Exploring these different processes will help to paint a picture of how they influence HCI.

PERCEPTION

Perception is the way in which a person interprets and understands their environment through sensory information (vision, audition, touch, etc.). Perception allows a user to see, hear, and feel when using computer interfaces. In addition, how we intend information to be perceived by a user is affected the way in which it’s presented: typography, legibility, color, pattern, objects, proximity, similarity, grouping, etc. augment the users perception. Color, for example, can convey to a user to take caution, or that action is needed – typically, green denotes that all things are fine or to proceed, yellow means to be careful or cautious, and red generally means stop or danger[2].

ATTENTION

Attention allows a person to selectively concentrate and focus on important, relevant information in their environment. Attention assists in information gathering, forming a goal(s), and completing tasks. In HCI, a system’s presentation of information has a direct impact on the attention of the user. For example, structured interfaces with meaningful, ordered layouts allow a user to process information better. The use of color, size, position, and ordering of items can draw the users attention to where it is, or isn’t, needed most. In turn these choices can help reduce operating mistakes and assist the user in performing their tasks[2].

MEMORY

Research into short-term (STM) and long-term (LTM) memory reveals how information is retained and recalled. In general, people are much better at recognition than recall; recall is often limited and far from precise. STM is easy to recall, but temporary and limited, near-present memory. With minimal effort, a person remember tasks, names, faces, and numbers, but can just as easily be forgotten. LTM stores memories and interpretations of the past, such as knowledge, experiences, and feelings. It has a larger capacity for retention, but storing and retrieval requires more exertion[4].

STM and LTM can affect the interaction between a user and computer. Overloading a users’ memory with complicated procedures may, for example, store an unpleasant experience with a particular interface in the users’ LTM. The memory of the experience can create a preconception of that system, and an adversity with its use. STM, for example, may store a recent system alert that was brief and not repeated, but can be easily forgotten if the user is preoccupied with another task.

…

TUNE-IN Next Week for Part 2, to find out how understanding Learning, Communication, & Problem Solving influences HCI, and the overall impact of psychology on interface design!

1 Newell, A., & Card, S. (1985). The Prospects For Psychological Science In Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(3), 209-242. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0103_1

2 Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.

3 Jacko, J. A., & Sears, A. (2003). Human-computer interaction. Fundamentals. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

4 Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

Send to Kindle

TYPICAL ACTIVITY VS. HYPERACTIVITY
Image from the 2013 Cell Reports Hyperactivity Study

“Our findings not only provide direct evidence for hyperconnectivity at the whole-brain level spanning multiple functional subsystems, but also demonstrate a link to core clinical symptoms in school-age children with ASD. More generally, this work challenges the notion of underconnectivity as the central neurobiological feature of ASD.”

A new study[1] examined the neural activity of both typical developing children, and children with autism. A team of researchers across three locations examined 110 children with a series of fMRI brain scans.

Autism affects nearly 1 in 88 children[2]. This study reversed findings from previous studies examining neural activity in the brain of adults with autism[3]. Researchers found significantly greater activity between neural connections. Several previous studies in adults reported weaker connections, leading to the belief that neurophysiological inactivity facilitated the diminished social communicative and increased repetitiveness of persons with autism—core criteria when diagnosing a person with autism[2].

The researchers believe the hyperactivity of signals found in children with autism inhibit the function of areas specifically responsible for communication and socialization.

“Drawing from these observations, it might not be too far fetched to speculate that the existing drugs used to treat epilepsy may be potentially useful in treating autism”

The authors presents epilepsy medication as a possible treatment. These findings may not only lead to new treatments, but also early detection. Lovaas found early intervention with intense behavioral techniques produced the best results, and lead some children on the spectrum to develop typically with their peers. The current age of diagnosis is three years old, and many authorities suggest parents should seek a diagnosis as early as two. The use of fMRI may provide a definitive diagnosis, and much early then two.

DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS

The findings are encouraging. While there is clearly a genetic basis, from twin studies, scientist have yet to pinpoint a single gene causing autism. Further, with such a variety of symptoms it is possible many different genes play a role, as well as environmental factors—most likely in-vitro [2].

Perhaps, these factors cause neurophysiolgical impairments, and the hyper-connectivity between neurons is an attempt to compensate for the functional deficiency of areas within the brain—instead of hyperactivity drowning those areas, as the study suggest. My previous post examined consciousness, and how neural connectivity may be the activity we call consciousness. What other illnesses might be due to malfunctioning connectivity between neurons, and what other insight might be gathered by examining consciousness and neuro-connectivity?

Without understanding the physiological nature of autism, treatment has been difficult. Behavioral modification techniques have been successful, pioneered by Lovaas. Perhaps these techniques alter neural responses in persons on the spectrum, similarly to how learning strengthens and builds neural activity specific to that learning.

Understanding the neurobiology is critical to developing treatment and providing early detection for children with autism. Future studies might look at difference between severity, or certain symptoms, on the spectrum, or may look into how different treatments alter neural patterns in children with autism. Autism is rife with miracle cures from pseudoscience, and a better understanding of the disease will help deflate the claims of alternative-medicine practitioners and miracle-men, many attempting to benefit from parents desperate to help their child develop “normally.”

Follow me on twitter @getpsychedblog

TUNE-IN Mondays for new posts, and look for new resource sections on the site in the next few weeks!

[1] Supekar, K., Uddin, L. Q., Khouzam, A., Phillips, J., Gaillard, W. J., Kenworthy, L. E., Yerys, B. E. Vaidya, C. J., Menon, V. (2013). Brain hyperconnectivity in children with autism and its links to social deficits. Cell Reports, 5, 738.

[2] American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).

[3] Kleinhans, N. M., Richards, T., Sterling, L., Stegbauer, K. C., Mahurin, R., Johnson, L. C., Greenson, J., Dawson, G., Aylward, E. (2008). Abnormal functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorders during face processing. Brain. 131(4), 1000.