More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Open access

Computational Rationality as a Theory of Interaction

Authors:

Antti Oulasvirta,

Jussi P. P. Jokinen,

Andrew HowesAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Article No.: 359, Pages 1 - 14

https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517739

Published: 29 April 2022 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

How do people interact with computers? This fundamental question was asked by Card, Moran, and Newell in 1983 with a proposition to frame it as a question about human cognition – in other words, as a matter of how information is processed in the mind. Recently, the question has been reframed as one of adaptation: how do people adapt their interaction to the limits imposed by cognition, device design, and environment? The paper synthesizes advances toward an answer within the theoretical framework of computational rationality. The core assumption is that users act in accordance with what is best for them, given the limits imposed by their cognitive architecture and their experience of the task environment. This theory can be expressed in computational models that explain and predict interaction. The paper reviews the theoretical commitments and emerging applications in HCI, and it concludes by outlining a research agenda for future work.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File

Talk Video

Transcript for: Talk Video

MP4 File

Video Preview

Transcript for: Video Preview

References

[1]

Aditya Acharya, Andrew Howes, Chris Baber, and Tom Marshall. 2018. Automation reliability and decision strategy: A sequential decision making model for automation interaction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 62. SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, 144–148.

[2]

Sander Ackermans, Debargha Dey, Peter Ruijten, Raymond H. Cuijpers, and Bastian Pfleging. 2020. The effects of explicit intention communication, conspicuous sensors, and pedestrian attitude in interactions with automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[3]

John R. Anderson. 1990. The adaptive character of thought. Psychology Press.

[4]

Stuart Armstrong and Sören Mindermann. 2018. Occam’s razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agents. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 5598–5609.

[5]

Zahra Ashktorab, Mohit Jain, Q. Vera Liao, and Justin D. Weisz. 2019. Resilient chatbots: Repair strategy preferences for conversational breakdowns. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[6]

B. Bahrami, K. Olsen, P. E. Latham, A. Roepstorff, G. Rees, and C. D. Frith. 2010. Optimally interacting minds. Science 329, 5995 (2010), 1081–1085.

[7]

Nikola Banovic, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2013. The effect of time-based cost of error in target-directed pointing tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1373–1382.

Digital Library

[8]

Andrew G. Barto, Satinder Singh, and Nuttapong Chentanez. 2004. Intrinsically motivated learning of hierarchical collections of skills. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Development and Learning. 112–119.

[9]

Harold Bekkering, Jos J. Adam, Herman Kingma, A. Huson, and H. T. A. Whiting. 1994. Reaction time latencies of eye and hand movements in single- and dual-task conditions. Experimental Brain Research 97, 3 (1994), 471–476.

[10]

Richard Bellman. 1966. Dynamic programming. Science 153, 3731 (1966), 34–37.

[11]

Jens Binder, Andrew Howes, and Alistair Sutcliffe. 2009. The problem of conflicting social spheres: Effects of network structure on experienced tension in social network sites. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 965–974.

Digital Library

[12]

Matthew Botvinick and Ari Weinstein. 2014. Model-based hierarchical reinforcement learning and human action control. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369, 1655 (2014), 20130480.

[13]

Michael E. Bratman, David J. Israel, and Martha E. Pollack. 1988. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4, 3 (1988), 349–355.

[14]

Duncan P. Brumby, Samantha C. E. Davies, Christian P. Janssen, and Justin J. Grace. 2011. Fast or safe? How performance objectives determine modality output choices while interacting on the move. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 473–482.

Digital Library

[15]

D. P. Brumby, D. D. Salvucci, and A. Howes. 2007. Dialing while driving? A bounded rational analysis of concurrent multi-task behavior. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling. 121–126.

[16]

Michael D. Byrne. 2001. ACT-R/PM and menu selection: Applying a cognitive architecture to HCI. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 55, 1 (2001), 41–84.

[17]

Frederick Callaway, Rangel Antonio, and Griffith Tom. 2020. Fixation patterns in simple choice are consistent with optimal use of cognitive resources.PsyArXiv preprint: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/57v6k (2020).

[18]

Frederick Callaway, Antonio Rangel, and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2021. Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling. PLoS Computational Biology 17, 3 (2021), e1008863.

[19]

S. K. Card, T. P. Moran, and A. Newell. 1983. The psychology of human–computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

[20]

Daniel R. Cavagnaro, Richard Gonzalez, Jay I. Myung, and Mark A. Pitt. 2013. Optimal decision stimuli for risky choice experiments: An adaptive approach. Management Science 59, 2 (2013), 358–375.

Digital Library

[21]

Noshaba Cheema, Laura A. Frey-Law, Kourosh Naderi, Jaakko Lehtinen, Philipp Slusallek, and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2020. Predicting mid-air interaction movements and fatigue using deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[22]

Xiuli Chen, Aditya Acharya, Antti Oulasvirta, and Andrew Howes. 2021. An adaptive model of gaze-based selection. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[23]

Xiuli Chen, Gilles Bailly, Duncan P. Brumby, Antti Oulasvirta, and Andrew Howes. 2015. The emergence of interactive behaviour: A model of rational menu search. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4217–4226.

Digital Library

[24]

Xiuli Chen, Sandra Dorothee Starke, Chris Baber, and Andrew Howes. 2017. A cognitive model of how people make decisions through interaction with visual displays. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1205–1216.

Digital Library

[25]

Allan Dafoe, Yoram Bachrach, Gillian Hadfield, Eric Horvitz, Kate Larson, and Thore Graepel. 2021. Cooperative AI: machines must learn to find common ground.

[26]

Jenny L. Davis and Nathan Jurgenson. 2014. Context collapse: Theorizing context collusions and collisions. Information, Communication & Society 17, 4 (2014), 476–485.

[27]

Nathaniel D. Daw. 2014. Advanced reinforcement learning. Neuroeconomics (2014), 299–320.

[28]

P. Dayan. 2014. Rationalizable irrationalities of choice. Topics in Cognitive Science(2014).

[29]

Peter Dayan and Nathaniel D. Daw. 2008. Decision theory, reinforcement learning, and the brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8, 4(2008), 429–453.

[30]

Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. 2000. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11, 4 (2000), 227–268.

[31]

Bradley B. Doll, Dylan A. Simon, and Nathaniel D. Daw. 2012. The ubiquity of model-based reinforcement learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 22, 6 (2012), 1075–1081.

[32]

Paul Dourish. 2004. What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing 8, 1 (2004), 19–30.

Digital Library

[33]

G. B. Duggan and S. J. Payne. 2009. Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 15, 3 (2009), 228–242.

[34]

Dennis E. Egan. 1988. Individual differences in human–computer interaction. In Handbook of human–computer interaction. Elsevier, 543–568.

[35]

Sascha E. Engelbrecht, Neil E. Berthier, and Laura P. O’Sullivan. 2003. The undershoot bias: Learning to act optimally under uncertainty. Psychological Science 14, 3 (2003), 257–261.

[36]

Mattias Esbjörnsson, Oskar Juhlin, and Alexandra Weilenmann. 2007. Drivers using mobile phones in traffic: An ethnographic study of interactional adaptation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 22, 1–2(2007), 37–58.

[37]

Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor. 1991. Social cognition. McGraw–Hill.

[38]

Krzysztof Gajos and Daniel S. Weld. 2004. SUPPLE: Automatically generating user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 93–100.

Digital Library

[39]

Xianyi Gao, Yulong Yang, Can Liu, Christos Mitropoulos, Janne Lindqvist, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2018. Forgetting of passwords: Ecological theory and data. In Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium. USENIX, 221–238.

[40]

Christoph Gebhardt, Antti Oulasvirta, and Otmar Hilliges. 2021. Hierarchical reinforcement learning explains task interleaving behavior. Computational Brain & Behavior 4 (2021), 284–304.

[41]

Wilson S. Geisler. 2011. Contributions of ideal observer theory to vision research. Vision Research 51, 7 (2011), 771–781.

[42]

Samuel J. Gershman and Nathaniel D. Daw. 2017. Reinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: An integrative framework. Annual Review of Psychology 68 (2017), 101–128.

[43]

Gerd Gigerenzer. 2018. The bias bias in behavioral economics. Review of Behavioral Economics 5, 3-4 (2018), 303–336.

[44]

Christian Guckelsberger, Christoph Salge, Jeremy Gow, and Paul Cairns. 2017. Predicting player experience without the player: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer–Human Interaction in Play. 305–315.

Digital Library

[45]

Michael U. Gutmann and Jukka Corander. 2016. Bayesian optimization for likelihood-free inference of simulator-based statistical models. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 125 (2016), 1–47.

[46]

Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Anca Dragan, Pieter Abbeel, and Stuart Russell. 2016. Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint: 1606.03137(2016).

[47]

Ulrike Hahn. 2014. The Bayesian boom: Good thing or bad?Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014).

[48]

U. Hahn and P. A. Warren. 2009. Perceptions of randomness: Why three heads are better than four. Psychological Review 116, 2 (2009), 454–461.

[49]

Christopher M. Harris. 1995. Does saccadic undershoot minimize saccadic flight-time? A Monte-Carlo study. Vision Research 35, 5 (1995), 691–701.

[50]

David B. Henson. 1978. Corrective saccades: Effects of altering visual feedback. Vision Research 18, 1 (1978), 63–67.

[51]

James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7, 2(2000), 174–196.

[52]

Kasper Hornbæk and Antti Oulasvirta. 2017. What is interaction?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 5040–5052.

Digital Library

[53]

Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 159–166.

Digital Library

[54]

Andrew Howes, Geoffrey B. Duggan, Kiran Kalidindi, Yuan-Chi Tseng, and Richard L. Lewis. 2016. Predicting short-term remembering as boundedly optimal strategy choice. Cognitive Science 40, 5 (2016), 1192–1223.

[55]

Andrew Howes and Richard L. Lewis. 2018. The role of (bounded) optimization in theory testing and prediction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41 (2018).

[56]

Andrew Howes, Richard L Lewis, and Alonso Vera. 2009. Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: Implications for testing theories of cognition and action.Psychological review 116, 4 (2009), 717.

[57]

Andrew Howes, Paul A. Warren, George Farmer, Wael El-Deredy, and Richard L. Lewis. 2016. Why contextual preference reversals maximize expected value.Psychological Review 123, 4 (2016), 368–391.

[58]

Scott Hudson, James Fogarty, Christopher Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny Lee, and Jie Yang. 2003. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: A Wizard of Oz feasibility study. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 257–264.

Digital Library

[59]

Jussi Jokinen, Aditya Acharya, Mohammad Uzair, Xinhui Jiang, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2021. Touchscreen typing as optimal supervisory control. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[60]

Jussi P. P. Jokinen and Tuomo Kujala. 2021. Modelling drivers’ adaptation to assistance systems. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 12–19.

[61]

Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Tuomo Kujala, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2020. Multitasking in driving as optimal adaptation under uncertainty. Human Factors (2020), 0018720820927687.

[62]

Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Ulpu Remes, Tuomo Kujala, and Jukka Corander. 2021. Bayesian parameter inference for cognitive simulators. In Bayesian methods for interaction design (forthcoming), Nikola Banovic, Per Ola Kirstensson, Antti Oulasvirta, and John H. Williamson (Eds.). Cambridge University Press.

[63]

Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Zhenxin Wang, Sayan Sarcar, Antti Oulasvirta, and Xiangshi Ren. 2020. Adaptive feature guidance: Modelling visual search with graphical layouts. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 136 (2020), 102376.

Digital Library

[64]

Keno Juechems, Jan Balaguer, Bernhard Spitzer, and Christopher Summerfield. 2021. Optimal utility and probability functions for agents with finite computational precision. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 2 (2021).

[65]

Antti Kangasrääsiö, Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Antti Oulasvirta, Andrew Howes, and Samuel Kaski. 2019. Parameter inference for computational cognitive models with Approximate Bayesian Computation. Cognitive Science 43, 6 (2019), e12738.

[66]

David E. Kieras. 1997. Building cognitive models with the EPIC architecture for human cognition and performance. Electrical Engineering 12 (1997), 48109–48109.

[67]

David E. Kieras and Anthony J. Hornof. 2014. Towards accurate and practical predictive models of active-vision-based visual search. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3875–3884.

[68]

David E. Kieras and Anthony J. Hornof. 2014. Towards accurate and practical predictive models of active-vision-based visual search. In CHI ’14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3875–3884.

[69]

Konrad P. Körding and Daniel M. Wolpert. 2006. Bayesian decision theory in sensorimotor control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10, 7 (2006), 319–326.

[70]

Brenden M. Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2015. Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science 350, 6266 (2015), 1332–1338.

[71]

Byungjoo Lee and Hyunwoo Bang. 2015. A mouse with two optical sensors that eliminates coordinate disturbance during skilled strokes. Human–Computer Interaction 30, 2 (2015), 122–155.

[72]

Katri Leino, Antti Oulasvirta, and Mikko Kurimo. 2019. RL-KLM: Automating keystroke-level modeling with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 476–480.

Digital Library

[73]

Stelios Lelis and Andrew Howes. 2011. Informing decisions: How people use online rating information to make choices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2285–2294.

Digital Library

[74]

Richard L. Lewis, Andrew Howes, and Satinder Singh. 2014. Computational rationality: Linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Topics in Cognitive Science 6, 2 (2014), 279–311.

[75]

Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2017. Strategy selection as rational metareasoning.Psychological Review 124, 6 (2017), 762–794.

[76]

Falk Lieder and Thomas L Griffiths. 2019. Resource-rational analysis: understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences(2019), 1–85.

[77]

Wendy E. Mackay. 1988. Diversity in the use of electronic mail: A preliminary inquiry. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 6, 4 (1988), 380–397.

Digital Library

[78]

I. Scott MacKenzie. 2018. Fitts’ law. Handbook of human–computer interaction 1 (2018), 349–370.

[79]

Laurence T. Maloney and Pascal Mamassian. 2009. Bayesian decision theory as a model of human visual perception: Testing Bayesian transfer. Visual Neuroscience 26, 1 (2009), 147–155.

[80]

D. E. Meyer, R. A. Abrams, S. Kornblum, C. E. Wright, and Keith Smith. 1988. Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal control of rapid aimed movements.Psychological Review 95, 3 (1988), 340–370.

[81]

Thomas M. Moerland, Joost Broekens, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2018. Emotion in reinforcement learning agents and robots: A survey. Machine Learning 107, 2 (2018), 443–480.

Digital Library

[82]

Sean A. Munson and Paul Resnick. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1457–1466.

[83]

Jiri Najemnik and Wilson S. Geisler. 2008. Eye movement statistics in humans are consistent with an optimal search strategy. Journal of Vision 8, 3 (2008), 4.

[84]

Donald A. Norman. 1988. The psychology of everyday things.Basic Books.

[85]

M. Oaksford and N. Chater. 2007. Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

[86]

K. P. O’Hara and S. J. Payne. 1998. The effects of operator implementation cost on planfulness of problem solving and learning.Cognitive Psychology 35, 1 (1998), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0676

[87]

Antti Oulasvirta, Niraj Ramesh Dayama, Morteza Shiripour, Maximilian John, and Andreas Karrenbauer. 2020. Combinatorial optimization of graphical user interface designs. Proc. IEEE 108, 3 (2020), 434–464.

[88]

Antti Oulasvirta and Kasper Hornbæk. 2021. Counterfactual thinking: What theories do in design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 38, 1(2021), 78–92.

[89]

Antti Oulasvirta, Per Ola Kristensson, Xiaojun Bi, and Andrew Howes. 2018. Computational interaction. Oxford University Press.

[90]

Sharon Oviatt, Rebecca Lunsford, and Rachel Coulston. 2005. Individual differences in multimodal integration patterns: What are they and why do they exist?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 241–249.

Digital Library

[91]

John W. Payne, James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. 1993. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.

[92]

Stephen J. Payne and Andrew Howes. 2013. Adaptive interaction: A utility maximization approach to understanding human interaction with technology. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 6, 1(2013), 1–111.

Digital Library

[93]

S. J. Payne, A. Howes, and W. R. Reader. 2001. Adaptively distributing cognition: A decision-making perspective on human–computer interaction. Behaviour & Information Technology 20, 5 (2001), 339–346.

[94]

Tomi Peltola, Jussi Jokinen, and Samuel Kaski. 2019. Probabilistic formulation of the Take The Best heuristic. arXiv preprint: 1911.00572(2019).

[95]

P. Pirolli. 2007. Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press: USA.

[96]

Peter G. Polson, Clayton Lewis, John Rieman, and Cathleen Wharton. 1992. Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 36, 5 (1992), 741–773.

Digital Library

[97]

Philip Quinn and Shumin Zhai. 2016. A cost–benefit study of text entry suggestion interaction. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 83–88.

Digital Library

[98]

Dobromir Rahnev and Rachel N. Denison. 2018. Suboptimality in perceptual decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41 (2018).

[99]

W. R. Reader and S. J. Payne. 2007. Allocating time across multiple texts: Sampling and satisficing. Human–Computer Interaction 22, 3 (2007), 263–298.

[100]

Stuart Russell. 2019. Human compatible: Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Penguin.

[101]

Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 2002. Artificial intelligence: A modern approach.

[102]

Stuart J. Russell. 1997. Rationality and intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 94, 1–2 (1997), 57–77.

Digital Library

[103]

Stuart J. Russell and Devika Subramanian. 1994. Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2 (1994), 575–609.

Digital Library

[104]

Dario D. Salvucci. 2001. Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: An integrated model approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 55, 1 (2001), 85–107.

Digital Library

[105]

Sayan Sarcar, Jussi P. P. Jokinen, Antti Oulasvirta, Zhenxin Wang, Chaklam Silpasuwanchai, and Xiangshi Ren. 2018. Ability-based optimization of touchscreen interactions. IEEE Pervasive Computing 17, 1 (2018), 15–26.

Digital Library

[106]

Albrecht Schmidt. 2000. Implicit human computer interaction through context. Personal Technologies 4, 2 (2000), 191–199.

[107]

Lael J. Schooler. 2004. How forgetting fosters heuristic inference. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cognitive Modelling.

[108]

Ben Shneiderman. 2011. Claiming success, charting the future: Micro-HCI and macro-HCI. Interactions 18, 5 (2011), 10–11.

Digital Library

[109]

Siti Rohkmah Mohd Shukri and Andrew Howes. 2019. Children adapt drawing actions to their own motor variability and to the motivational context of action. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 130 (2019), 152–165.

[110]

Satinder Singh, Richard L. Lewis, and Andrew G. Barto. 2009. Where do rewards come from?. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society, 2601–2606.

[111]

Mason R. Smith, Richard L. Lewis, Andrew Howes, A. Chu, C. Green, and A. Vera. 2008. More than 8,192 ways to skin a cat: Modeling behavior in multidimensional strategy spaces. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Bradley C. Love, K. McRae, and Vladimiir M. Sloutsky (Eds.). Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 1441–1446.

[112]

Lucy Suchman. 1993. Response to Vera and Simon’s situated action: A symbolic interpretation.Cognitive Science 17, 1 (1993), 71–75.

[113]

Lucy Suchman. 2003. Writing and reading: A response to comments on plans and situated actions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12, 2 (2003), 299–306.

[114]

Lucy A. Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

[115]

Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto. 1998. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Digital Library

[116]

J. A. Swets, W. P. Tanner, Jr, and T. G. Birdsall. 1961. Decision processes in perception. Psychological Review 68, 5 (1961), 301–340.

[117]

Kashyap Todi, Jussi Jokinen, Kris Luyten, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2018. Familiarisation: Restructuring layouts with visual learning models. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 547–558.

Digital Library

[118]

Kashyap Todi, Jussi Jokinen, Kris Luyten, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2019. Individualising graphical layouts with predictive visual search models. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 10, 1(2019), 1–24.

Digital Library

[119]

Julia Trommershäuser, Laurence T. Maloney, and Michael S. Landy. 2003. Statistical decision theory and the selection of rapid, goal-directed movements.Journal of the Optical Society of America A 20, 7 (2003), 1419–1433.

[120]

Julia Trommershäuser, Laurence T. Maloney, and Michael S. Landy. 2009. The expected utility of movement. Brain (2009), 95–111.

[121]

Yuan-Chi Tseng and Andrew Howes. 2015. The adaptation of visual search to utility, ecology and design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 80 (2015), 45–55.

Digital Library

[122]

Yuan-Chi Tseng and Andrew Howes. 2015. The adaptation of visual search to utility, ecology and design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 80 (2015), 45–55.

Digital Library

[123]

Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Lingyi Zhang, Yun-Han Huang, Claudia Hilderbrand, Zoe Steine-Hanson, and Margaret Burnett. 2019. From gender biases to gender-inclusive design: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.

Digital Library

[124]

Colin Ware. 2019. Information visualization: Perception for design. Morgan Kaufmann.

[125]

Shumin Zhai, Jing Kong, and Xiangshi Ren. 2004. Speed–accuracy tradeoff in Fitts’ law tasks – on the equivalency of actual and nominal pointing precision. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 61, 6 (2004), 823–856.

Digital Library

[126]

Jiajie Zhang, Vimla L. Patel, Todd R. Johnson, and Edward H. Shortliffe. 2004. A cognitive taxonomy of medical errors. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 37, 3 (2004), 193–204.

Digital Library

[127]

Brian D. Ziebart, Nathan Ratliff, Garratt Gallagher, Christoph Mertz, Kevin Peterson, J. Andrew Bagnell, Martial Hebert, Anind K. Dey, and Siddhartha Srinivasa. 2009. Planning-based prediction for pedestrians. In 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 3931–3936.

Cited By

Wang YSrinivasan AJokinen JOulasvirta AMarkkula G(2025)Pedestrian crossing decisions can be explained by bounded optimal decision-making under noisy visual perceptionTransportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10.1016/j.trc.2024.104963171(104963)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2024.104963
Baber CAcharya AHowes ACassenti DYu A(2024)How can Artificial Intelligence Teammates Know What Humans Want? Using Eye-Tracking Data to Infer Human Preferences in Game-Theoretic Decision TasksProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/1071181324126683368:1(1542-1548)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241266833
Yu DDingler TVelloso EGoncalves J(2024)Object Selection and Manipulation in VR Headsets: Research Challenges, Solutions, and Success MeasurementsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/370641757:4(1-34)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706417
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Computational Rationality as a Theory of Interaction
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. User models
    2. HCI theory, concepts and models

Recommendations

Rediscovering Affordance: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Affordance refers to the perception of possible actions allowed by an object. Despite its relevance to human–computer interaction, no existing theory explains the mechanisms that underpin affordance-formation; that is, how affordances are discovered and ...
What Is Interaction?
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

The term interaction is field-defining, yet surprisingly confused. This essay discusses what interaction is. We first argue that only few attempts to directly define interaction exist. Nevertheless, we extract from the literature distinct and highly ...
Interaction criticism: a proposal and framework for a new discipline of hci
CHI EA '08: CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Though interaction designers critique interfaces as a regular part of their research and practice, the field of HCI lacks a proper discipline of interaction criticism. By interaction criticism we mean rigorous, evidence-based interpretive analysis that ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2022

10459 pages

ISBN:9781450391573

DOI:10.1145/3491102

Editors:
Simone Barbosa
PUC-Rio, Brazil
,
Cliff Lampe
University of Michigan, USA
,
Caroline Appert
Université Paris-Saclay, France
,
David A. Shamma
Toyota Research Institute, USA
,
Steven Drucker
Microsoft Research, USA
,
Julie Williamson
University of Glasgow, UK
,
Koji Yatani
University of Tokyo, Japan

Copyright © 2022 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

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 April 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Honorable Mention

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Academy of Finland
Finnish Center for AI

Conference

CHI '22

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '22: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 29 - May 5, 2022

LA, New Orleans, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI 2025

Sponsor:
sigchi

ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

40
Total Citations
View Citations
5,236
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)2,308
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)313

Reflects downloads up to 23 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wang YSrinivasan AJokinen JOulasvirta AMarkkula G(2025)Pedestrian crossing decisions can be explained by bounded optimal decision-making under noisy visual perceptionTransportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies10.1016/j.trc.2024.104963171(104963)Online publication date: Feb-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2024.104963
Baber CAcharya AHowes ACassenti DYu A(2024)How can Artificial Intelligence Teammates Know What Humans Want? Using Eye-Tracking Data to Infer Human Preferences in Game-Theoretic Decision TasksProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting10.1177/1071181324126683368:1(1542-1548)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813241266833
Yu DDingler TVelloso EGoncalves J(2024)Object Selection and Manipulation in VR Headsets: Research Challenges, Solutions, and Success MeasurementsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/370641757:4(1-34)Online publication date: 23-Dec-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706417
Janaka NZhao SHsu DTan Jing Wen SKoh CKostakos VKay JHoang T(2024)TOM: A Development Platform For Wearable Intelligent AssistantsCompanion of the 2024 on ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing10.1145/3675094.3678382(837-843)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3675094.3678382
Janaka NZhao SHsu DTan Jing Wen SKoh CKostakos VKay JHoang T(2024)Demonstrating TOM: A Development Platform For Wearable Intelligent AssistantsCompanion of the 2024 on ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing10.1145/3675094.3677551(214-219)Online publication date: 5-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3675094.3677551
Langerak TChristen SAlbaba MGebhardt CHolz CHilliges O(2024)MARLUI: Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Point-and-Click UIsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36611478:EICS(1-27)Online publication date: 17-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3661147
Vuong TJacucci GRuotsalo T(2024)Naturalistic Digital Behavior Predicts Cognitive AbilitiesACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/366034131:3(1-32)Online publication date: 30-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660341
Seifi HBhatia AHornbæk K(2024)Charting User Experience in Physical Human–Robot InteractionACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction10.1145/365905813:2(1-29)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3659058
Fischer FIkkala AKlar MFleig ABachinski MMurray-Smith RHämäläinen POulasvirta AMüller J(2024)SIM2VR: Towards Automated Biomechanical Testing in VRProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676452(1-15)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676452
Wu JPeng YLi XSwearngin ABigham JNichols J(2024)UIClip: A Data-driven Model for Assessing User Interface DesignProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676408(1-16)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676408
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents