skip to main content
10.1145/3517031.3529236acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesetraConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Research on Time Series Evaluation of Cognitive Load Factors using Features of Eye Movement

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 June 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

The relationship between ocular metrics and factor ratings for mental workloads are examined using a Bayesian statistical state-space modeling technique. During a visual search task experiment, microsaccade frequency and pupil size were observed as measures of mental workload. Individual mental workloads were measured using a 6 factor NASA-TLX rating scale. The models calculated generalized temporal changes of microsaccade frequency and pupil size during tasks. The contributions of factors of mental workload are examined using effect size. Also, chronological analysis was introduced to detect the reactions of the metrics during tasks. The results suggest that the response selectivity of microsaccades and pupil size can be used as factors of mental workload.

References

  1. Samantha F. Anderson, Ken Kelly, and Scott E. Maxwell. 2017. Sample-Size Planning for More Accurate Statistical Power: A Method Adjusting Sample Effect Sizes for Publication Bias and Uncertainty. Psychological Science 28(11) (2017), 1547–1562.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrew T. Duchowski, Krzysztof Krejtz, Izabela Krejtz, Cezary Biele, Anna Niedzielska, Peter Kiefer, Martin Raubal, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. 2018. The Index of Pupillary Activity: Measuring Cognitive Load vis-à-vis Task Difficulty with Pupil Oscillation. CHI2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ralf Engbert. 2006. Microsaccades: a microcosm for research on oculomotor control, attention, and visual perception. Progress in Brain Research 154 (2006), 177–192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Ralf Engbert and Reinhold Kliegl. 2003. Microsaccades uncover the orientation of covert attention. Vision Research 43(2003), 1035–1045.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. R. Engbert, P. Sinn, K. Mergenthaler, and H. Trukenbrod. 2015. Microsaccade Toolbox 0.9. Potsdam Mind Research Repository(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Julia M. Haaf and Jeffrey N. Rounder. 2017. Developing constraint in Bayesian mixed models. Psychological Methods 22(2017), 779–798.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Shuichi Hara. 2020. An experience of introducing a gaze-input communication device for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Kyushu University of Health and Welfare Research Record (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sandra G. Hart. 2006. NASA-Task Load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual meeting. 904–908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Hirotaka Kobayashi. 2018. Communication Aids for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Japanese). Jpn J Rehabil Vol.55 No.7(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Krzysztof Krejtz, Andrew T. Duchowski, Anna Niedzielska, Cezary Biele, and Izabela Krejtz. 2018. Eye tracking cognitive load using pupil diameter and microsaccades with fixed gaze.PLoS ONE 13(9): e0203629(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael D. Lee. 2011. How cognitive modeling can benefit from hierarchical Bayesian models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 55 (2011), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Shinji Miyake. 2015. Special Issues No. 3: Measurement Technique for Ergonomics, Section 3:Psychological Measurements and Analyses (6), Mental Workload Assessment and Analysis -A Reconsideration of the NASA-TLX- (Japanese). Ningen Kougaku (The Japanese journal of ergonomics) 51, 6(2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Shinji Miyake and Masaharu Kuma-Shiro. 1993. Subjective mental workload assessment technique-An introduction to NASA- TLX and SWAT and a proposal of simple scoring methods- (Japanese). Ningen Kougaku (The Japanese journal of ergonomics) 29, 6(1993).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Minoru Nakayama and Yoshiya Hayakawa. 2021. Influence of Task-evoked Mental Workloads on Oculo-motor indices and their connections. EAI Trans. Context-aware Systems and Applications 7, 23(2021), e2:1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tomomi Okano and Minoru Nakayama. 2021a. Feasibility of evaluting temporal changes in cognitive load factors using ocular features. In COGAIN workshop, Proceedings of ETRA21. 29:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448018.3458019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Tomomi Okano and Minoru Nakayama. 2021b. The relationship between Psychological Workload and Oculomotor Indicies under Visual Search Task Excution. In Proc. of BIOSTEC. 365–371.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. OpenCV. 2017. StaticSaliency. https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/d5/d87/ classcv_1_1saliency_1_1StaticSaliency.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Marco Torchiano. 2020. Efficient Effect Size Computation: Package effsize. https://github.com/mtorchiano/effsize.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Takahiro Ueno and Minoru Nakayama. 2021. Estimation of Visual Attention using Microsaccades in response to Vibrations in the Peripheral Field of Vision. In Proceedings of ETRA2021. 19:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448018.3458012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format