Archive for category social

Ubuntu Installation Instructions: The Power of Open Source

I received some feedback on the last post where I discussed the Ubuntu installation rules. A very nice person noticed an error in Step 7 and told me what to change. Additionally, that user also made the changes to the page itself, since it was a Wiki.

A wiki allows anyone to come in and make changes to the page, which means a site can access the talent of their user base. Therefore, I went ahead and made a couple of changes that hopefully made the Mac OS X installation instructions more clear. Wikis exemplify the power of open source, with a community of users contributing to make something better. Oftentimes it is programmers, but sometimes the improvements come from regular users. That desire to improve what gives us joy is a factor of psychology that open source exploits, and everyone is the better for it.

Check out the new installation instructions here.

,

No Comments

Summer doldrums

August always is a slow time for research; everyone is on vacation and preparing for the upcoming semester. The summer doldrums have also slowed me down, which explains the lack of posting.

Nonetheless, I did get a nice surprise today: I found out that the journal Cognition posted a preprint of the article I have in press with them. I’ve already blogged about this research in a previous post, but now the article is available in its final form for everyone to see.

You can download a copy here.

No Comments

Memory for faces is better than memory for other objects, but only under specific conditions

An article written by me, my advisor, and another professor at George Mason University just got accepted for publication in the journal Cognition:

Wong, J. H., Peterson, M. S & Thompson, J. C. (in press). Visual working memory for objects from different categories: A face-specific maintenance effect. Cognition.

Abstract: The capacity of visual working memory was examined when complex objects from different categories were remembered. Previous studies have not examined how visual similarity affects object memory, though it has long been known that similar-sounding phonological information interferes with rehearsal in auditory working memory. Here, experiments required memory for two or four objects. Memory capacity was compared between remembering four objects from a single object category to remembering four objects from two different categories. Two-category sets led to increased memory capacity only when upright faces were included. Capacity for face-only sets never exceeded their non-face counterparts, and the advantage for two-category sets when faces were one of the categories disappeared when inverted faces were used. These results suggest that two-category sets which include faces are advantaged in working memory but that faces alone do not lead to a memory capacity advantage.


So what does this mean? Other research has demonstrated that visual working memory seems to be able to hold more information about faces than other objects such as cars or inverted faces (which are processed in an entirely different manner from faces). This is a sensible conclusion, as faces have been shown to be processed uniquely in terms of perception. However, this is the first evidence that faces are unique in terms of working memory.

Our evidence supports that conclusion but also narrows it down. We found no specific advantage for faces if you have to remember a bunch of faces together or a bunch of other objects together (all houses, butterflies, or bodies in motion). This was seen for remembering two or four objects. However, if you have to remember two objects from two categories – two faces and two houses, for example – your memory was better than for four objects from the same category. Additionally, this only happened when faces were part of the set. Remembering two butterflies and two houses together did not lead to better memory.

Therefore, faces are unique in memory, but an advantage is only seen when faces are remembered with non-face objects. Why? It’s possible that there are distributed (but overlapping) representations of faces and all other objects, almost like a Venn diagram with two partially overlapping circles. When only faces or only other objects are remembered, only one of the two circles is activated in support of memory. When faces and other objects must be remembered, both circles can activate, increasing memory capacity. This theory, however, is for another experiment that we’re working on.

By the way, this is the same research that was presented at the 2008 Vision Sciences Conference held last May. Click the poster image below for the PDF:

No Comments

Understanding users and the digital TV transition

This isn’t a traditional Human Factors problem per se. It’s more of a sociological issue, but it involves people and technology, so I will write about it.

In February of 2009, the analog television signals that get sent over-the-air to people with rabbit ear antennas will be shut off. In their place will be digital signals that will require a new TV or a converter box to receive. Anyone with cable or satellite television will not be affected.

Who will be affected? Well, that’s the problem. Anyone who is getting their TV via old-fashioned rabbit ears will need to do something. The government needs to get information into the hands of these people. But what is the typical profile of someone who is still using rabbit ears? They may live in rural areas, are more likely to be older, and are probably not technologically savvy.

From an article in the Washington Post:

Many of the older TVs belong to seniors and low-income individuals — populations that are typically harder to reach to educate about technical change. Yet these groups are also the people who most rely on their TVs for critical information such as news reports and public-service alerts. In nursing homes and retirement communities, where many sets need antennas to pick up signals, TVs could flicker out.

This is a human factors problem in that the technology is in place, but many of the people who will be affected by the new technology are not ready. The focus now falls on understanding something about the users – that they are not technologically savvy. Ads on TV may work fairly well, but directing people to the Internet will not be a good idea. Apparently, Britain spent a lot of resources hiring people to go door-to-door to inform people of the transition. Not in the least bit high-tech, but likely to be very effective. A non-technocal solution to a problem caused by technology – neat.

No Comments

Great New York Times article on Social Robots

Robots have long been a sci-fi favorite, but the robots we traditionally think about have been a failure. Sure, we have robots that can search through debris and do incredibly dangerous or tedious jobs that humans don’t want to do. This is good for humanity, but this is not the general-purpose robot we all think of. The word robot was coined in 1942 (Wikipedia), but what robots do we have in general use today? We have the Roomba… and that’s about it. The attempt to create a robot with sophisticated artificial intelligence has not been successful. We don’t understand enough about human cognition to try and implement it in an artifical being.

Well, there’s been a new push in robotics recently to develop so-called “Social Robots.” They do not take care of us – instead, we interact and take care of them. These robots are not a one-way butler or maid. Instead, we interact with them, and then we develop an affinity for them. They may not be able to go grocery shopping for us, but the can still act on our behalf.

I’ve mentioned how detrimental interruptions are to our workflow before, and researchers are working on metric to determine how engrossed we are with our work – keypresses or mouse clicks/minute, eyetracking, etc. I personally would be disconcerted if my Mac’s built-in camera was watching me to determine if I was busy. However, a little desk trinket that appears to be a cute toy could easily earn a place on my desk and also monitor my keypress rate and even my eye movements. If it were squishy, yellow and adorable (see video below), I’d be more likely to adopt such a monitoring technology. This is all about tapping into some kind of social need. Instead of trying to get robots to mimic our cognition, we use our understanding of the human psyche to build robots that we want to interact with. It’s a fascinating example of understanding how humans function and designing a system around that.

The New York Times has a great article about this new field, which you can read about here. Or, if the link goes away, you can read a PDF here.

So who in the world cares about social robots? They certainly can’t do your laundry, wash your dishes, or walk your dog. But these social robots hit some intrinsic need. Perhaps, a need…. to dance:

No Comments