Psychology of Computer Use: XXXVIII. Compatibility of Task Presentation and Task Structure in Human-Computer Interaction

1996 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baijun Zhao ◽  
Gavriel Salvendy
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Mental Workload ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Subjective Rating ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Program Code ◽  
Workload Analysis ◽  
Graphic Presentation ◽  
Task Presentation ◽  
And Task

Task presentation concerns how information is presented. Previous studies of differences between the alphanumeric presentation and the graphic presentation of task information have reported inconclusive or inconsistent results because the effect of task structure and its interaction with task presentation have been ignored. This study explored the compatibility between task presentation and task structure. Two forms of task presentation, namely, the alphanumeric presentation and the graphic presentation, were examined. Two types of task structure, namely, linear procedural and conditional branching, were examined. A nested factorial experiment was conducted for a comprehension of computer programs. Program code written in C programming language was used as the alphanumeric presentation of computer programs. Flowchart was the graphic presentation of computer programs. 32 subjects participated, 16 being exposed only to the alphanumeric presentation, while another 16 were exposed only to the graphic presentation. Each subject performed tasks with both types of structure. Four measures were collected, task completion time, number of errors, subjective rating of task difficulty, and subjective rating of mental workload. Analysis indicated significant interaction between presentation and the structure of task on all four measures. On each measure, the graphic flowchart presentation was more compatible with the conditional branching tasks than the alphanumeric program code presentation. On the two subjective measures of task difficulty and mental workload, the alphanumeric program code presentation was more compatible with the linear procedural tasks than the graphic flowchart presentation.

The Effect of Processing Code, Response Modality and Task Difficulty on Dual Task Performance and Subjective Workload in a Manual System

1987 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 847-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yili Liu ◽  
Christopher D. Wickens
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Time Sharing ◽  
Multiple Resources ◽  
Response Modality ◽  
Dual Task Performance ◽  
Processing Resources ◽  
And Task

We report here the first experiment of a series studying the effect of task structure and difficulty demand on time-sharing performance and workload in both automated and corresponding manual systems. The experimental task involves manual control time-shared with spatial and verbal decisions tasks of two levels of difficulty and two modes of response (voice or manual). The results provide strong evidence that tasks and processes competing for common processing resources are time shared less effectively and have higher workload than tasks competing for separate resources. Subjective measures and the structure of multiple resources are used in conjunction to predict dual task performance. The evidence comes from both single task and from dual task performance.

Computer-Aided Performance Training for Diagnostic and Procedural Tasks

1974 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. Rigney ◽  
D. M. Towne
Keyword(s):  
Processing Speed ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Complex Tasks ◽  
Performance Training ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Procedural Tasks ◽  
And Task ◽  
Digital Computers

Two large, modularized, computer programs were developed to explore the possibilities for utilizing the processing speed and power of digital computers in interactions with students designed to teach them procedural and diagnostic tasks. The programs operated on simple list structures to 1) generate all interactions with the student, 2) simulate and continuously update device and task structure states, and 3) track students while performing complex tasks. The development and testing of these programs is described.

Goal Orientation, Task Interest, and Task Difficulty: An HLM Analysis

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Horvath ◽  
Hailey L. Ahlfinger ◽  
Robert L. McKie
Keyword(s):  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Orientation Task ◽  
Task Interest ◽  
And Task

Learning from feedback: Effects of task information and task structure

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben R. Newell ◽  
Nicola J. Weston ◽  
Richard Tunney ◽  
David R. Shanks
Keyword(s):  
Task Structure ◽  
Feedback Effects ◽  
And Task

Division of labor

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phanish Puranam
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Task Allocation ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Heuristic Approaches ◽  
Object Based ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Task Division ◽  
And Task

Division of labor involves task division and task allocation. An extremely important consequence of task division and allocation is the creation of interdependence between agents. In fact, division of labor can be seen as a process that converts interdependence between tasks into interdependence between agents. While there are many ways in which the task structure can be chunked and divided among agents, two important heuristic approaches involve division of labor by activity vs. object. I show that a choice between these two forms of division of labor only arises when the task structure is non-decomposable, but the product itself is decomposable. When the choice arises, a key criterion for selection between activity vs. object-based division of labor is the gain from specialization relative to the gain from customization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document