Cited By
View all- He HShe YJiang YCai WClaypool MEg R(2022)See through themProceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Games Systems10.1145/3534085.3534338(1-4)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2022
Modeling user's decision process through gaze behavior
Pages 536 - 540
Abstract
When we choose items among alternatives, we sometimes face a problem of mismatch between what we actually want and selected items. Therefore, if an interactive system can probe our interests from several modalities (e.g, eye movements and speech recognition) and decrease these mismatch, the system can be helpful for decision making with a satisfaction. In order to build such interactive decision support systems, the systems need to estimate both users' interests (selection criteria for that decision) and users' knowledge about the content domain. Here, not only users' knowledge but also users' selection criteria can be changed; for example, users' selection criteria converge as a reaction to system's recommendation. Therefore, the system needs to understand the dynamics of users' selection criteria in order to choose appropriate actions. What makes more difficult is that the dynamics of users' internal states themselves can change depend on a phase of decision making. Therefore, we need to address (a) how to represent users' internal states, (b) how to estimate and trace temporal changes of users' internal state, and (c) how to trace users' decision phase so that system can decide actions for decision assistance. In order to tackle these problems, we propose a novel representation of users' internal state, which consists of selection criteria and structures of users' knowledge about the content domain and a method to estimate these selection criteria from gaze behavior. In addition, we consider the multiscale dynamics of users' internal states so that the system can trace users' decision phase as temporal changes of dynamics of users' internal states.
References
[1]
K. Athukorala, A. Medlar, A. Oulasvirta, G. Jacucci, and D. Glowacka. Beyond relevance: Adapting exploration/exploitation in information retrieval. In Proc. of IUI ’16, pages 359–369, 2016.
[2]
A. Borji. Boosting bottom-up and top-down visual features for saliency estimation. In CVPR 2012, pages 438–445, Jun. 2012.
[3]
B. Brandherm, H. Prendinger, and M. Ishizuka. Interest estimation based on dynamic bayesian networks for visual attentive presentation agents. In Proc. of ICMI ’07, pages 346–349, 2007.
[4]
R. Burke. Interactive critiquing for catalog navigation in e-commerce. Artif. Intell. Rev., 18(3-4):245–267, Dec. 2002.
[5]
M. Cao, A. Stewart, and N. E. Leonard. Convergence in human decision-making dynamics. Systems and Control Letters, 59(2):87–97, 2010.
[6]
S. Chowdhury, F. Gibb, and M. Landoni. Uncertainty in information seeking and retrieval: A study in an academic environment. Inf. Process. Manage., 47(2):157–175, Mar. 2011.
[7]
P. C. Fishburn. Utility theory for decision making. operations research. J. Wiley, New York, 1970.
[8]
T. Hirayama, D. Jean-Baptiste, H. Kawashima, and T. Matsuyama. Estimates of user interest using timing structures between proactive content-display updates and eye movements. IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst., E-93D(6):1470–1478, Jun. 2010.
[9]
T. Hofmann. Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. In In Proc. of UAI ’99, pages 289–296, 1999.
[10]
T. Misu, K. Sugiura, T. Kawahara, K. Ohtake, C. Hori, H. Kashioka, H. Kawai, and S. Nakamura. Modeling spoken decision support dialogue and optimization of its dialogue strategy. ACM Trans. Speech Lang. Process., 7(3):10:1–10:18, Jun. 2011.
[11]
J. L. Orquin and S. M. Loose. Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1):190 – 206, 2013.
[12]
J. Pfeiffer, D. Duzevik, F. Rothlauf, E. Bonabeau, and K. Yamamoto. An optimized design of choice experiments: A new approach for studying decision behavior in choice task experiments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(3):262–280, 2015.
[13]
J. Polifroni and M. A. Walker. Intensional summaries as cooperative responses in dialogue: Automation and evaluation. In Proc. of ACL, Columbus, Jun. 2008.
[14]
R. Ratcliff and G. McKoon. The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks. Neural computation, 20(4):873 – 922, 2008.
[15]
T. J. Reynolds and J. Gutman. Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1):11–31, 1988.
[16]
J. E. Russo and F. Leclerc. An eye-fixation analysis of choice processes for consumer nondurables. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2):274–290, 1994.
[17]
T. L. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Piority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New york, 1980.
[18]
S. W. Shi, M. Wedel, and F. G. M. R. Pieters. Information acquisition during online decision making: A model-based exploration using eye-tracking data. Management Science, 59(5):1009–1026, 2013.
[19]
K. Shimonishi, E. Ishikawa, R. Yonetani, H. Kawashima, and T. Matsuyama. Learning aspects of interest from gaze (in japanese). Trans. Human Interface Society, 16(2):103–114, 2014.
[20]
K. Shimonishi, H. Kawashima, E. Schaffer, and T. Matsuyama. Tracing temporal changes of selection criteria from gaze information. In Proc. of IUI ’16, pages 9–12, 2016.
[21]
K. Shimonishi, H. Kawashima, R. Yonetani, E. Ishikawa, and T. Matsuyama. Learning aspects of interest from gaze. In Proc. of GazeIn ’13, pages 41–44, 2013.
[22]
A. Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79:281–299, 1972.
[23]
M. A. Walker, S. J. Whittaker, A. Stent, P. Maloor, J. Moore, M. Johnston, and G. Vasireddy. Generation and evaluation of user tailored responses in multimodal dialogue. Cognitive Science, 28(5):811 – 840, 2004.
[24]
R. W. White, B. Kules, S. M. Drucker, and M. Schraefel. Supporting exploratory search. Commun. ACM, 49(4):36–39, 2006.
Index Terms
- Modeling user's decision process through gaze behavior
Recommendations
Tracing Temporal Changes of Selection Criteria from Gaze Information
IUI '16 Companion: Companion Publication of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User InterfacesTo design interactive systems that proactively assist users' decision making, the users' gaze information is an important cue for the system to estimate users' selection criteria. Users sometimes change selection criteria while browsing content. ...
Supporting the decision implementation process
CRIWG'10: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Collaboration and technologyAs the environment becomes competitive, organizations must develop the ability to quickly adapt to changes, becoming flexible and responsive. The decision making process should be quicker and more assertive, leading to action. Organizations need to make ...
Empirical evaluation of a process to increase consensus in group architectural decision making
ContextMany software architectural decisions are group decisions rather than decisions made by individuals. Consensus in a group of decision makers increases the acceptance of a decision among decision makers and their confidence in that decision. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
October 2016
605 pages
ISBN:9781450345569
DOI:10.1145/2993148
- General Chairs:
- Yukiko I. Nakano,
- Elisabeth André,
- Toyoaki Nishida,
- Program Chairs:
- Louis-Philippe Morency,
- Carlos Busso,
- Catherine Pelachaud
Copyright © 2016 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 31 October 2016
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
Conference
ICMI '16
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 453 of 1,080 submissions, 42%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 128Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- He HShe YJiang YCai WClaypool MEg R(2022)See through themProceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Games Systems10.1145/3534085.3534338(1-4)Online publication date: 14-Jun-2022
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in