Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Paper: TAProViz 2015 Proceedings!




Just had our TAProViz 2015 workshop from BPM2015 proceedings preface sent off to Springer for printing.

PDF available here.

Ross

Sunday, November 8, 2015

Paper Review: Notes from "Using thematic analysis in psychology"

#Title#
Using thematic analysis in psychology

#Authors#
Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke

#Venue#
Qualitative Research in Psychology

#DOI#
http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

#Abstract#
Thematic analysis is a poorly demarcated, rarely acknowledged, yet widely used qualitative analytic method within psychology. In this paper, we argue that it offers an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to analysing qualitative data. We outline what thematic analysis is, locating it in relation to other qualitative analytic methods that search for themes or patterns, and in relation to different epistemological and ontological positions. We then provide clear guidelines to those wanting to start thematic analysis, or conduct it in a more deliberate and rigorous way, and consider potential pitfalls in conducting thematic analysis. Finally, we outline the disadvantages and advantages of thematic analysis. We conclude by advocating thematic analysis as a useful and flexible method for qualitative research in and beyond psychology. 

#Comments#

Useful paper to plug the gap of the absence of an introductory paper on thematic analysis for non-qualitative researchers.  While I do have problems with this as a technique in contrast to quantitative methods that I have usually used in either software engineering, computer graphics or otherwise, it does enable contextualisation of the thoughts of participants in user studies.

Reading starts here:

Seems to be a lack of consensus on the placement of thematic analysis, is or is not a specific method.  The authors argue it is a specific method.

They argue that it is to be well defined in this paper, without restricting its flexibility.

Corpus refers to all data, while data set is the data to be used in analysis.  

Key Point - "Thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data." Obvious, but it has to be stated.

They claim that it is a method of analysis, and that other named approaches are essentially still a form of thematic analysis.

They comment that themes should not emerge; this is a passive approach, denying the place of the researcher.  They say that themes reside in our head from our thinking about the data.  ME: I wonder if it is a product of an interaction with the data, which probably puts me into a social constructivist position.  Does the data turn into an entity in my phenomenological experience.  No, that is too silly.  But, one could imagine that I am giving the data some agency in some way.  Something to think about...

"What counts as a theme? A theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set."

They suggest there is no hard percentage of data that establishes a theme; ME: can this get any more vague?  This suggests no standard computational component to thematic analysis.  Though they suggest prevalence as a heuristic approach.  I guess one instance is disproving evidence of the absence of that instance in the rest of the cohort.

"Part of the flexibility of thematic analysis is that it allows you to determine themes (and prevalence) in a number of ways. What is important is that you are consistent in how you do this within any particular analysis."

ME: I am struggling here.  How do you take a measurement without a clear comparable metric that generalises to other cohorts?  While I get the primacy of consistency, one can be consistently wrong as well.

They then compare and contrast the top down theoretical approaches to bottom up inductive processes.  Inductive is considered richer, top down is more detailed analysis of a particular theme.

Semantic or latent themes.  Semantic is more of an analysis of the themes present in the data prima facie, while latent analysis looks for underlying ideas from the themes; thus is more interpretive.  They also note it is more constructivist, but is not necessarily completely constructivist. ME: man, my poor quantitative brain is struggling a little here. :-)  while I get that phenomenological outcomes are going to be inexact and dynamic, I am finding this a little hard going. 

"Those approaches which consider specific aspects, latent themes and are constructionist tend to often cluster together, while those that consider meanings across the whole data set, semantic themes, and are realist, often cluster together."

There are 6 guidelines (not rules, of course! :-))  With some comments or extracts from their descriptions of these phases.

1. Familiarizing yourself with your data:
2. Generating initial codes:
3. Searching for themes:
4. Reviewing themes:
5. Defining and naming themes:
6. Producing the report:

Phase 1

They recommend re-reading data.  Mark down codes now, as part of an interpretive process.  Make sure not to process transcriptions, as punctuation can matter at this stage.   Interestingly they suggest to personally transcribe (my IS school hires people) in order to develop deep reading skills.  Good point.

Phase 2

"remember that you can code individual extracts of data in as many different ‘themes’ as they fit into 􏰀/ so an extract may be uncoded, coded once, or coded many times, as relevant."  ME: This seems to be an m-to-m mapping for themes.  I would need an example, but if many themes use elements that reappear, then that must be problematic for identification of themes as entities.  Just seems too incoherent.

Phase 3

Key point, do not throw out any themes, just keep them in the basket for later.

Phase 4 

Make sure your themes fit all the data; which to me is almost impossible, but may work as an inexact process.

Stop refining when there is no new contribution to the themes.  ME: Almost a embedded grounded theory exercise.

Phase 5

The key point to take home is the need for the themes to be an essential description of the data, with a punchy and clear title for communicating the ideas.

Phase 6

The report provides sufficient evidence of the presence of the themes within the data set analysed.

Needs to go beyond description to make an argument about the data analysed.  ME: Key point here.

Common Problems

Lack of actual analysis - obvious, but I have seen it a lot in tool evaluations.  Maybe because the response to the tool is not expected to be that complex?

"The third is a weak or unconvincing analysis, where the themes do not appear to work, where there is too much overlap between themes, or where the themes are not internally coherent and consistent."

Avoid:

"‘anecdotalism’ in qualitative research 􏰀/ where one or a few instances of a phenomenon are reified into a pattern or theme, when it or they are actually idiosyncratic."

Consider alternative thematic explanations in the analysis, to show deep insight into the data and its context.

"One of the criticisms of qualitative research from those outside the field is the perception that ‘anything goes’." ME: The authors have insight! :-) 

As can be seen by my comments, I have some skepticism about the results of such thematic analysis.  However, I do give it validity for its ability to contextualise quantitative results.  I aim to do that with more rigour in the future in my research, as my work usually involves software tool analysis.

#ImportantRefs#

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Paper: Exploring collaborative modeling of business processes on large interactive touch display walls

Workshop paper and related ITS poster has been uploaded to eprints.  Will be presented on the 15th Nov. at ITS 2015 and related CMIS workshop.  Is part of a collaboration with University of Bochum, supported by IFE  @ QUT.

Ross

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Boast: QUT Games Project Download Links

Last Wednesday night we had our BGIE Industry Showcase in P Block @ QUT.  Great night, with heaps of gameplay.  But, even if you missed the event, you can play the games!  All the links to the student projects follow.  So knock yourself out and play my students' games.  You won't be disappointed. :-)

Archmage - http://www.indiedb.com/games/archmage/downloads/archmage
Endpoint - http://www.indiedb.com/games/endpoint/downloads/endpoint
Heroes of Yggdrasil - http://www.indiedb.com/games/heroes-of-yggdrasil/downloads/heroes-of-yggrasil
Overground - http://www.indiedb.com/games/overground/downloads/overground
The Skeleton War - http://www.indiedb.com/games/the-skeleton-war/downloads/the-skeleton-war
Curse of Excalibur - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.TeamMonoXTreme.CurseOfExcalibur
The Library - http://www.indiedb.com/games/the-library-4dminds/downloads/the-library1
Solitude Station - http://www.indiedb.com/games/solitude-station/downloads/solitude-station-104
M is for Mutant - http://www.indiedb.com/games/m-is-for-mutant/downloads/m-is-for-mutant-101
Right To Rule - http://www.indiedb.com/games/right-to-rule/downloads/right-to-rule
Capacitor - http://www.indiedb.com/games/capacitor/downloads/capacitor2
League of Metal Men - http://www.indiedb.com/games/the-league-of-metal-men/downloads/the-league-of-metal-men
Cube Commander - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.PlaceHolderProductions.CubeCommander2
Barnyard Revolution - http://www.indiedb.com/games/barnyard-revolution/downloads/barnyard-revolution-pc1
Icarus - http://www.indiedb.com/games/icarus-by-maximum-crinkle-games/downloads/icarus-v104

Good to also see the "The Skeleton War" and "M is for Mutant" have been featured on the banner of IndiDB and are still in the Top 100 after a number of weeks.

Way to go guys!

Ross

Video: Large Scale Multi-touch Process Modelling @ QUT

Link to a video showing the full feature set of our large scale process modeller.  Video was made for a workshop paper at ITS 2015, to appear soon on this blog.

Great work by the team: Erik, Fortune, Artem, Alex and Matt!

Ross

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Video: Our Elicitation Research on ABC TV in Australia!

Woot!  Our virtual world expert elicitation research has just been shown on ABC QLD TV.  Footage of our work commences at the 25 minute mark: http://ab.co/1K1CsOt (available to Australian IP addresses only).

Ross

Sunday, August 9, 2015

CFP: 11th International Symposium on Visual Computing (ISVC'15) http://www.isvc.net

CALL FOR PAPERS
11th International Symposium on Visual Computing (ISVC'15)

December 14-16, 2015
Monte Carlo Resort & Casino
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

ISVC provides a common forum for researchers, scientists, engineers and practitioners to present their latest research findings, ideas, developments and applications in visual computing. We seek papers contributing to the state of the art and practice in any of the four central areas of visual computing: (1) computer vision, (2) computer graphics, (3) virtual reality, and (4) visualization.  Of particular interest are papers that combine technologies from two or more areas. For a list of topics, see http://www.isvc.net

ISVC'15 will consist of invited and contributed presentations dealing with all aspects of visual computing. In addition to the main program, the symposium will include several keynote presentations, special tracks, and a poster session. Significantly extended and revised versions of selected papers will be considered for publication in a special issue of the International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools (IJAIT) (ISI/SCIE indexed). Also, a "best paper" award ($500) will be sponsored by Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL). The symposium's proceedings will be published by Springer-Verlag in Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

***Important Dates***

Paper submissions August 21, 2015
Notification of acceptance September 23, 2015
Final camera ready paper October 20, 2015
Advance Registration October 20, 2015
ISVC'15 Symposium December 14-16, 2015


***Keynote Speakers***

Fei-Fei Li, Stanford University, USA
Ravi Ramamoorthy, UCSD, USA
Claudio Silva, New York University, USA
Oncel Tuzel, MERL, USA
Evan Suma, USC, USA
Luc Vincent, Google, USA


(Area 1) Computer Vision Chairs:
Pavlidis Ioannis, University of Houston, USA
Feris Rogerio, IBM, USA

(Area 2) Computer Graphics Chairs:
McGraw Tim, Purdue University, USA
Elendt Mark, Side Effects Software Inc., USA


(Area 3) Virtual Reality Chairs:
Kopper Regis, Duke University, USA
Ragan Eric, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA

(Area 4) Visualization Chairs:
Yang Jing, University of North Carolina, USA
Weber Gunther, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA


*** Submission Procedure ***

Papers submitted to ISVC'15 must not have been previously published and must not be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. A complete paper should be submitted in camera-ready format. The length should match that intended for final publication. The page limit is 12 pages. In submitting a paper the author(s) agree that, upon acceptance, they will prepare the final manuscript in time for inclusion into the proceedings and will present the paper at the symposium.


***Special Tracks***

Papers submitted to a special track must not have been previously published, and must not be currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

ST1: Computational Bioimaging
       Organizers:
       Tavares João Manuel R. S., University of Porto, Portugal
       Natal Jorge Renato, University of Porto, Portugal

ST2: 3D Surface Reconstruction, Mapping, and Visualization
       Organizers:
       Nefian Ara, Carnegie Mellon University/NASA Ames Research Center, USA
       Edwards Laurence, NASA Ames Research Center, USA
       Huertas Andres, NASA Jet Propulsion Lab, USA

ST3: Observing Humans
       Organizers:
       Savakis Andreas, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA
       Argyros Antonis, University of Crete, Greece
       Asari Vijay, University of Dayton, USA

ST4: Advancing Autonomy for Aerial Robotics
       Organizers:
       Alexis Kostas, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
       Chli Margarita,, University of Edinburgh, UK
       Achtelik Marcus, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
       Kottas Dimitrios, University of Minnesota, USA
       Bebis George, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

ST5: Spectral Imaging Processing and Analysis for Environmental, Engineering and Industrial Applications
       Organizers:
       Doulamis Anastasions (Tasos) , National Technical University of Athens, Greece
      Loupos Konstantinos, Institute of Communications and Computer Systems, Greece

ST6: Big Data Visualization and Analytics
       Organizers:
       Yang Lei, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
       Chen Xu, University of Goettingen, Germany
       Lin Fuhong, University of Science and Technology Beijing, China
       Zhang Rui, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA

ST7: Unconstrained Biometrics: Challenges and Applications (tentative)
       Organizers:
       Proença Hugo, University of Beira Interior, Portugal
       Ross Arun, Michigan State University, USA

ST8: Intelligent Transportation Systems
       Organizers:
       Ambardekar, Amol, Microsoft, USA
       Morris, Brendan, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

ST9: Visual Perception and Robotic Systems
       Organizers:
       La Hung, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
       Sheng Weihua, Oklahoma State University, USA
       Fan Guoliang, Oklahoma State University, USA
       Kuno Yoshinori, Saitama University, Japan
       Ha Quang, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
       Tran Anthony (Tri), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

       Dinh Kien, Rutgers University, USA

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Paper Review: A Parallel Coordinates Style Interface for Exploratory Volume Visualization

#Title# 
A Parallel Coordinates Style Interface for Exploratory Volume Visualization

#Authors# 
Melanie Tory, Simeon Potts and Torsten Moeller

#Venue#
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, VOL. 11, NO. 1, JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005

#DOI#
10.1109/TVCG.2005.2

#Abstract#
We present a user interface, based on parallel coordinates, that facilitates exploration of volume data. By explicitly representing the visualization parameter space, the interface provides an overview of rendering options and enables users to easily explore different parameters. Rendered images are stored in an integrated history bar that facilitates backtracking to previous visualization options. Initial usability testing showed clear agreement between users and experts of various backgrounds (usability, graphic design, volume visualization, and medical physics) that the proposed user interface is a valuable data exploration tool.

#Comments#
Useful paper, due to its use of heuristic evaluations as a assessment tool for visualisations, published in one of the top journals in the field.

Makes interesting comments on the need for tools to be from the scientist's point of view, and not a graphical point of view.

In essence it uses parallel coordinates to represent volumetric parameters for analysis and modification in volumetric medical visualisation.

Their technique is about reducing the overhead in exploring a transfer function parameter space, thus the use of parallel coordinates (a nice high dimensionality visualisation space).  They use this application structure to drive their selection of heuristics to evaluate on page 72 - sensible approach. 

Does this mean it is a "usefulness" evaluation due to the mapping to key tasks?!?  Strikes me that usability and usefulness overlap maybe too much, and needs to be carefully teased out in any validation.

They apply the Shneiderman Mantra.  They test with 5 people, no information about who the experts were; this is obfuscating.  Assume they are visualisation experts as they also tested with one "end-user".  Postgrads co-opted?!?!?!?  They have had no interaction with a previous parallel coordinates project; important to note.

They set up the data sets ahead of time with default values for parameters.  Tasks were to explore, then look for an identifiable object (key).  The experts were not end users with their "own goals" - Note this!  Thus they can use the tool, but are not trained to think in a domain manner.

Researchers used contextual inquiry techniques to form discussions.  11 heuristics were evaluated using 7 point scales.  Experts provided a written report on ads/disads - page 76.  Their work is based on a Nielson heuristic derivative HCI assessment approach (Chin 1988).  There is no mapping from heuristics to numerical measures; specifically no example questionnaire questions.

They use the five experts to rate, across 11 heuristics, tables vs. normal viz vs. parallel coordinates for parameters.  They used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to detect sig. diff. between the three viz. types.  I have to question this; n = 5 is simply not significance in size.  A larger sample is required, they do not note effect sizes, which adds to my doubts to statistical power.  But the Wilcoxon is okay for non parametric distributions not assuming normality, so possibly valid.

They then quote comments from the experts during the evaluation process, but with no evidence of encoding, just collecting comments.  They then list a series of improvements the experts suggested.

#ImportantRefs#

J.P. Chin, V.A. Diehl, and K.L. Norman, “Development of an Instrument Measuring User Satisfaction of the Human-Computer Interface,” Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 213-218, 1988.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Paper Review: Situating Cognition within the Virtual World

#Title#
Situating Cognition within the Virtual World

#Authors#
Paul R. Smart and Katia Sycara

#Venue#
6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the 
Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015

#DOI#
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/376733/1/AHFE_2015.pdf

#Abstract#
Cognitive architectures and virtual environments have a long history of use within the cognitive science community. Few studies, however, have sought to combine the use of these technologies to support computational studies into embodied, extended, situated and distributed (EESD) cognition. Here, we explore the extent to which the ACT-R cognitive architecture and the Unity game engine can be used for these purposes. A range of issues are discussed including the respective responsibilities that the cognitive architecture and game engine have for the implementation of specific processes, the extent to which the representational and computational capabilities of cognitive architectures are suited to the modeling of EESD cognitive systems, and the extent to which the kind of embodiment seen in the case of so-called ‘embodied virtual agents’ resembles that seen in the case of real-world bio-cognitive systems. These issues are likely to inform the focus of future research efforts concerning the integrative use of virtual environments and cognitive architectures for the computational modeling and simulation of EESD cognitive processes. 

#Comments#
An interesting little paper covering some issues around integrating Unity with present situated cognition systems such as ACT-R  http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/ and THESEUS - their own simulation framework.

Not much theory here, but worth noting regarding the utility of processing visual features in the environment into abstract representations suitable for ACT-R to process.

Interesting observation, they quote Clark "Clark [1] thus distinguishes between ‘mere embodiment’, ‘basic embodiment’ and ‘profound embodiment’. He suggests that profound embodiment is primarily a feature of bio-cognitive systems, and that this form of embodiment is unlike that seen in the case of synthetic agents."

My point here is that, this applies to humans in the space.  Using certain interfaces should increase this level of embodiment.  A good idea would be to create a scale for this, so that researchers can assess the experience of embodiment, to maybe predict responses in humans.

They note the difficulty of integrating EESD forms of situated cognition into games systems.  Which I find interesting.  Why don't they form embodied scripts in the environments which are trained to interact with each other in a similar way to models of situated cognition, regarding our bodily movements?  Sounds like PhD project to me.  Surely these have been used in robotics, so should translate to a computational architecture easily, and, with Unity's nice scripting setup, should be able to be executed relatively easily, but only on a powerful machine. :-)

#ImportantRefs#

1. Clark, A. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA, 2008

2. Smart, P. R., Scutt, T., Sycara, K., Shadbolt, N. R. in: Turner, J. O., Nixon, M., Bernardet, U., DiPaola, S. (Eds.) Integrating Cognitive Architectures into Virtual Character Design, IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, in press.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

2nd CFP: TAProViz 2015 : 4th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Visualizations and Human-centric Aspects in Processes

TAProViz’15 4th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Visualizations and Human-centric Aspects in Processes, Innsbruck, Austria - 31 August 2015


In conjunction with the 12th International Conference on Business Process Management BPM2015 - http://bpm2015.q-e.at/ at Innsbruck, Austria.

========================
Call for Papers
========================

Visualizations can make the structure and dependencies between elements in processes accessible in order to support users who need to analyze process models and their instances.

However, effectively visualizing processes in a user-friendly way is often a big challenge, especially for complex process models which can consist of hundreds of process components (e.g., process activities, data flows, and resources) and thousands of running process instances in different execution states.

Many challenges remain to be addressed within the broad area of process visualization, human interaction and user led design such as: scalability, human-computer interaction, cognitive aspects, applicability of different approaches, collaboration, process evolution, run-time requirements of process instances and applications, user-engagement etc.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
* Visual Metaphors in Processes
* Visual Design and Aesthetics for Processes
* Visualization of Dynamic Data in Processes
* Change Visualization for Processes
* Interface and Interaction Techniques for Process Visualization
* Visualization Techniques for Collaboration and Distributed Processes
* Visualization of Large-scale Processes
* Cognition and Perception in Process Visualization
* Evaluation and User Studies of Process Visualization
* Evaluation Methods for Human Aspects in PAIS
* Visual Modeling Languages
* Analysis Techniques and Visualization for Processes
* Process Visualization of Large Screens
* Mobile Process Visualization
* Visualization Tools and Systems for Processes
* Visualization Techniques for Processes
* Process Visualization and Sonification
* Virtual World Process Visualization
* Immersive Process Modeling Approaches
* Human Computer Interaction Design Applied to Process Systems
* 3D Process Visualization Approaches
* Human-centric aspects in business process management
* User-centered design for BPM
* User Interface design for Processes

========================
Format of the Workshop
========================

The half day workshop will comprise accepted papers and tool evaluations. Papers should be submitted in advance and will be reviewed by at least three members of the program committee.

This year will also include a new innovation in the programme. Part of the workshop time (depending on the number of prototype submissions) will be set aside for focus group assessments of tools. We will be requesting tool report authors, successful workshop paper authors and panel members attending BPM, to assist in the assessment of demonstration visualization techniques and software. This evaluation process will be a service to attendees, as these heuristic assessments can be written up later as separate papers, or by the workshop chairs as an aggregated workshop outcome. Such evaluations will be an exciting addition to the workshop, as people experienced in Information Visualization, BPM, HCI and related fields, will provide detailed feedback on your prototypes. The evaluation approach is largely in the hands of the tool report writers, but at a minimum, should involve direct interaction with your software and some form of validation via a questionnaire.

All accepted papers will appear in the workshop proceedings published by Springer in the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) series. There will be a single LNBIP volume dedicated to the proceedings of all BPM workshops. As this volume will appear after the conference, there will be informal proceedings during the workshop. At least one author for each accepted paper should register for the workshop and present the paper.

========================
Important Dates
========================

* Deadline for workshop paper submissions: 29 May 2015
* Notification of Acceptance: 29 June 2015
* Camera-ready version: 20 July 2015
* TAProViz Workshop: 31 August 2015

========================
Paper Submission
========================

Prospective authors are invited to submit papers for presentation in any of the areas listed above.

Three types of submissions are possible:

* (1) full papers (12 pages long) reporting mature research results
* (2) position papers reporting research that may be in preliminary stage that has not yet been evaluated
* (3) tool reports, to be evaluated at the workshop

Position papers and tool reports should be no longer than 6 pages. Tool reports should include a brief evaluation plan as an appendix, for the evaluation session at the workshop on the day.

Papers must be in English and must present original research contributions not concurrently submitted elsewhere. Papers should be submitted in the LNBIP format. The title page must contain a short abstract, a classification of the topics covered, preferably using the list of topics above, and an indication of the submission category (regular paper/position paper/tool report).

All accepted workshop papers will be published by Springer as a post-workshop proceedings volume in the series Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP). Hard copies of these proceedings will be shipped to all registered participants approximately four months after the workshops, while preliminary proceedings will be distributed during the workshop.

Submitted papers will be evaluated, in a double blind manner, on the basis of significance, originality, technical quality, and exposition. Papers should clearly establish their research contribution and the relation to the theory and application of process visualization.

========================
Registration
========================

Accepted papers imply that at least one of the authors will register for BPM2015 and present the paper at the TAProViz workshop.

Further workshop information is available from the website: http://www.wst.univie.ac.at/topics/taproviz15/

Hope to see you at TAProViz'15!

Thanks and best regards,

Ross Brown
Simone Kriglstein
Stefanie Rinderle-Ma

TAProViz Organising Committee

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Paper: Process visualization techniques for multi-perspective process comparisons

Have just had the paper "Process visualization techniques for multi-perspective process comparisons" accepted for AP-BPM, written with Azzurra Pini (Politecnico Milano), and Moe Wynn (QUT).  This is an outcome of Azzurra's work as an intern with us at QUT in 2014.  the paper is stored here, please contact me if you want a copy.

Abstract - Organizations executing similar business processes need to understand the differences and similarities in activities performed across work environments. Presently, research interest is directed towards the potential of visualization for the display of process models, to support users in their analysis tasks. Although recent literature in process mining and comparison provide several methods and algorithms to perform process and log comparison, few contributions explore novel visualization techniques. This paper analyzes process comparison from a design perspective, providing some practical visualization techniques as analysis solutions. In order to support the needs of business analysts the design of the visual comparison has been tackled via three different points of view: the general model, the superimposed model and the side-by-side comparison. A case study is presented showing a preliminary evaluation of the application of process mining and visualization techniques to patient treatment across two Australian hospitals.

Ross

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Paper Review: A Quantum Information Retrieval Approach to Memory

#Title#
A Quantum Information Retrieval Approach to Memory

#Authors#
Kirsty Kitto, Peter Bruza, Liane Gabora

#Venue#
Neural Networks (IJCNN), The 2012 International Joint Conference on

#DOI#
DOI: 10.1109/IJCNN.2012.6252492

#Abstract#
Abstract—As computers approach the physical limits of in- formation storable in memory, new methods will be needed to further improve information storage and retrieval. We propose a quantum inspired vector based approach, which offers a contextually dependent mapping from the subsymbolic to the symbolic representations of information. If implemented computationally, this approach would provide exceptionally high density of information storage, without the traditionally required physical increase in storage capacity. The approach is inspired by the structure of human memory and incorporates elements of Gaerdenfors’ Conceptual Space approach and Humphreys et al.’s matrix model of memory.

#Comments#
This paper detail's Bruza, Kitto and Gabora's matrix model of memory.  Peter Bruza is also a colleague of mine at QUT. :-)

The key components I find interesting are the relationship between symbolic and subsymbolic levels, and its movement towards a distributed overlaid model of memory, that causes excitations in related symbolic entities/terms.  The matrix notation allows for a representation of context as a matrix of features, which via tensor product formalism,  allows for memory to be a distributed process, with activations of related terms.

This is of interest to me, as we can start to utilise visual features in a computational model of subsymbolic components contributing to memory recall via similar inputs of features.

While this is strongly related to an NN associated matrix approach, it makes the relationships between the components explicit, and is thus a candidate as a cognitive model of priming in expert elicitation sessions.  This approach can then be used to modulate user interfaces in virtual world elicitation systems.

#ImportantRefs#

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Videos/Code: Free Unity Shader Demos from my Rendering Course @ QUT

I've made videos and Unity project files from my teaching at QUT available on my Youtube channel www.youtube.com.au/BPMVE.  The playlist is here.  Enjoy and feel free to pass onto interested people.

NB: If you want to know about the theory, come and do my course INB382 Real-time Rendering Techniques at QUT. ;-)

Ross

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Review: Imagination Inflation: Imagining a Childhood Event Inflates Confidence that it Occurred

#Title#
Imagination Inflation: Imagining a Childhood Event Inflates Confidence that it Occurred

#Authors#
Maryanne Garry, Charles G. Manning, Elizabeth F. Loftus

#Venue#
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
3 (2), 208-214

#DOI#
http://cogprints.org/590/1/199801004.html

#Abstract#
Counterfactual imaginings are known to have far reaching implications. In the present experiment, we ask if imagining events from one's past can affect memory for childhood events. We draw on the social psychology literature showing that imagining a future event increases the subjective likelihood that the event will occur. The concepts of cognitive availability and the source monitoring framework provide reasons to expect that imagination may inflate confidence that a childhood event occurred. However, people routinely produce myriad counterfactual imaginings (i.e., daydreams and fantasies) but usually do not confuse them with past experiences. To determine the effects of imagining a childhood event, we pretested subjects on how confident they were that a number of childhood events had happened, asked them to imagine some of those events, and then gathered new confidence measures. For each of the target items, imagination inflated confidence that the event had occurred in childhood. We discuss implications for situations in which imagination is used as an aid in searching for presumably lost memories.

#Comments#
Am strongly interested in the effect of false memories on the process of expert elicitation.  In particular, the stimulus used in the process of extracting the information from experts.

So, in this paper, I am interested in the quality of the inputs into a session.  Could one plant false memories of the work or knowledge using such systems.  Could it be that using a virtual world to perform the elicitation, if incorrectly configured, will introduce more errors, due to the creation of powerful false memories from the visuals created.  Hmmmm.

Interesting to note that the effect is easier with early childhood memories - attributed to vagueness of distant memory.  This is also possibly related to the credulity of young children; do you become a little childlike by remembering your childhood?  If the effect is consistent, this opens up all sorts of possibilities for creation of beneficial false memories, or to reduce the effects of bad environments (GTA 5 comes to mind) by making sure the rules in such environments make moral sense, removing the effect of such false memories induced by gameplay.

So what is War Thunder doing to me?  Do I know have false memories of driving a Tiger I?

The weird part would be the eerie familiarity of driving the Tiger in real life, the eerie familiarity is my false memory of driving in a game, but I experience familiarity in real life.  Would I discern the difference, can I, as the familiarity is beyond my control to an extent.

Interestingly enough, this experimental method almost reads like an elicitation session.  The experiment manager states to the participant: "What are you likely to do next" while imagining the false event.  They are, in concept, creating a false sequence of events or episodes in the memory.

Note, the early estimate of past memory was repeated after the experimenter has faked losing their results - might be dodgy, could people see through this.  I wonder if they controlled for insight into the ruse; it is not noted in the description of results.

So, the data showed a consistent increase in confidence of remembering the fake event, especially after imagining the event (personal VR :-) ).  They controlled for big jumps, conjectured to be actual priming of actual lost memories; this is important in elicitation.  They also note that the number of big jumps is small.  Also note, that people who did not imagine between tests still went up, but not as much.  Another effect in play, maybe regression to the mean, or just a familiarity effect.  These effects are important in any elicitation test; just repeating questions may bring about a false memory - this is what cops and psychologists do.

They also bring up the issue of self being in the imagination session.  Brings up the idea that an avatar should represent the person who is doing the elicitation, to bring the participant a sense of performing the task in world; might increase the concept of presence.

#ImportantRefs#

Paper: Model as you do : engaging an S-BPM vendor on process modelling in 3D virtual worlds

Have recently had a book chapter "Model as you do : engaging an S-BPM vendor on process modelling in 3D virtual worlds," accepted.  The paper was written with Joel Harman, my Honours student from QUT, and Udo Kannengiesser, Nils Meyer and Thomas Rothschaedl from Metasonic GmbH.  It describes the processes Joel and I went through to implement a virtual world process elicitation tool in conjunction with Metasonic in Germany.  The chapter will be published in "In S-BPM in the Wild – Value Creating Practice in the Field," Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.

QUT eprints entry is here, email me on r.brown@qut.edu.au if you want a copy.

Abstract: Accurate process model elicitation continues to be a time consuming task, requiring skill on the part of the interviewer to extract explicit and tacit process information from the interviewee. Many errors occur in this elicitation stage that would be avoided by better activity recall, more consistent specification methods and greater engagement in the elicitation process by interviewees. Metasonic GmbH has developed a process elicitation tool for their process suite. As part of a research engagement with Metasonic, staff from QUT, Australia have developed a 3D virtual world approach to the same problem, viz. eliciting process models from stakeholders in an intuitive manner. This book chapter tells the story of how QUT staff developed a 3D Virtual World tool for process elicitation, took the outcomes of their research project to Metasonic for evaluation, and finally, Metasonic’s response to the initial proof of concept.

Ross

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Paper: Evidence that virtual worlds improve business process elicitation










Our paper "Virtual Business Role-play: Leveraging Familiar Environments to Prime Stakeholder Memory during Process Elicitation," has been accepted for CaISE 2015 in Stockholm, Sweden.  This paper is a product of an Honours thesis by my student Joel Harman, in collaboration with Stefanie Rinderle-Ma (Uni. Vienna), Daniel Johnson (QUT) and Udo Kannengiesser (Metasonic GmbH).  

The paper is stored here at QUT eprints, contact me on r.brown@qut.edu.au if you want a pdf copy.

Abstract. Business process models have traditionally been an effective way of examining business practices to identify areas for improvement. While common information gathering approaches are generally efficacious, they can be quite time consuming and have the risk of developing inaccuracies when information is forgotten or incorrectly interpreted by analysts. In this study, the potential of a role-playing approach for process elicitation and specification has been examined. This method allows stakeholders to enter a virtual world and role-play actions as they would in reality. As actions are completed, a model is automatically developed, removing the need for stakeholders to learn and understand a modelling grammar. Empirical data obtained in this study suggests that this approach may not only improve both the number of individual process task steps remembered and the correctness of task ordering, but also provide a reduction in the time required for stakeholders to model a process view.

Not only is this is a great achievement by Joel, CaISE is a very competitive conference, but the preliminary evidence is very encouraging.  Virtual worlds do indeed work well as a process elicitation tool, especially, we believe, for naive stakeholders.

Ross

Thursday, February 12, 2015

CFP: VINCI 2015 : The 8th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction

VINCI 2015 : The 8th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction

http://vinci-conf.org/

<< Call For Papers >>

The 8th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI15) will be held during August 24-26 in Tokyo, Japan. VINCI15 aims to provide an international forum for researchers and industrial practitioners to discuss the state of the art in visual communication theories, designs, and applications. Papers can be submitted as long papers, short papers and posters.
All accepted papers will be published by ACM Press and made available in the ACM Digital Library. Selected papers will be published in special issues of appropriate journals including Journal of Visualization (JoV).

1. Papers and Posters
Authors are invited to submit original and unpublished research and practical applications in all areas of visual communication and interaction. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:

Area 1: Visualization methodologies
Information visualization, Graph drawing and visualization, Cognitive aspects of visual information comprehension, Visual metaphors and symbols, Usability or empirical study of new visual metaphors, Design theory in the digital age, Aesthetics in visual communication and digital media, Interaction methods (touch-based, haptic, vision-based, multi-modality, Big Data, Visual languages, Diagrams, Art + Science

Area 2: Visualization applications
Visual Analytics, Sketching, Graphical user interface design, Software visualization, Visual approaches to knowledge discovery, Visualization on mobile devices, Animation, Game design, Biological visualizations

Area 3: Visual design and art
Interaction design, Interactive art, Infographie and data-driven art, Visual perception and cognition, Multimedia, Virtual actors, Interactive storytelling, Augmented reality and its applications, Virtual reality and its applications, Computational (or digital) aesthetics, Wearable computers, Ubiquitous / responsive environments, Entertainment technology

2. Workshops and Tutorials
VINCI15 is also soliciting proposals for full-day and half-day workshops and tutorials on topics that address areas of interest to the community. Proposals should be a maximum of 2 pages. In particular, workshop proposals should include:

* A brief description of the specific issues that the workshop will address, the reasons why the workshop is of interest in these times, the main research areas involved.
* Contact information of the workshop chairs, their competence in the proposed topic(s) and previous experience in chairing scientific events.
* A tentative list of Program Committee members.
* A draft of the Call for Papers  It is possible to extend the symposium one day if many workshops or tutorials are proposed.

while tutorial proposals should include a CV of the proposer, a dradt of the tutorial content and evidence of the possibility of attracting audience to the tutorial.

<< Important dates >>
Submission of workshop/tutorial proposals: April 1, 2015
Notification of proposal acceptance: April 5, 2015
Submission of long/short papers: April 10, 2015
Notification of paper acceptance: June 10, 2015
Submission of posters: June 5, 2015
Notification of poster acceptance: June 15, 2015
Camera-ready copy due: June 25, 2015

<< Committees >>

General Chair
 Takayuki Itoh, Ochanomizu University, JAPAN
Program Chairs
 Paolo Bottoni, Sapienza University of Rome, ITALY
 Shigeo Takahashi, University of Tokyo, JAPAN
Local Arrangement Chairs
 Kazuo Misue, University of Tsukuba, JAPAN
 Yuriko Takeshima, Tohoku University, JAPAN
Publicity Chair
 Tomoko Kajiyama, Aoyama Gakuin University, JAPAN

Program Committee
 Tomasz Bednarz, CSIRO
 Robert P. Biuk-Aghai, University of Macau
 Paul Bourke, The University of Western Australia
 Stephen Brooks, Dalhousie University
 Ross Brown, Queensland University of Technology
 Michael Burch, University of Stuttgart
 Antonio Camurri, University of Genoa
 Li Chen, Tsinghua Unversity
 Gennaro Costagliola, Universita di Salerno
 Phil Cox, Dalhousie University
 Alberto Del Bimbo, Universita degli Studi di Firenze
 Kate Dunn, University of Sydney
 Liang Gou, IBM Research - Almaden
 Masahito Hirakawa, Shimane University
 Xavier Ho, University of Sydney / CSIRO
 Seok-Hee Hong, University of Sydney
 Hiroshi Hosobe, Hosei University
 Weidong Huang, University of Tasmania
 Xiaodi Huang, Charles Sturt University
 Masahiko Itoh, The University of Tokyo
 Andreas Kerren, Linnaeus University
 Karsten Klein, Monash University
 Jun Kong, North Dakota State University
 Yina Li, Nankai University
 Chun-Cheng Lin, National Chiao Tung University
 Zhanping Liu, Kentucky State University
 Aidong Lu, UNC Charlotte
 John Mcghee, The University of New South Wales
 Kazuo Misue,  University of Tsukuba
 Chris Muelder, University of California at Davis
 Quang Vinh Nguyen, University of Western Sydney
 Yoshihiro Okada, Kyushu University
 Marc Olano, University of Maryland
 Semi Ryu, Virginia Commonwealth University
 Raimondo Schettini, Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
 Kamran Sedig, University of Western Ontario
 Guanglei Song, Twitter
 Arcot Sowmya, University of New South Wales
 Changming Sun, CSIRO
 Guodao Sun, Zhejiang University of Techonology
 Gualtiero Volpe, InfoMus-DIST-University of Genoa
 Zhiyong Wang, The University of Sydney
 Sai-Keung Wong, The National Chiao Tung University
 Hsiang-Yun Wu, The University of Tokyo
 Yu-Bin Yang, Nanjing University
 Kang Zhang, University of Texas at Dallas
 Ye Zhao, Kent State University
 Hong Zhou, Shenzhen University
 Jianlong Zhou, National ICT Australia

Saturday, February 7, 2015

CFP: TAProViz 2015 : 4th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Visualizations and Human-centric Aspects in Processes

TAProViz'15

4th International Workshop on Theory and Application of Visualizations and Human-centric Aspects in Processes, Innsbruck, Austria - 31 August 2015

http://www.wst.univie.ac.at/topics/taproviz15/

In conjunction with the 12th International Conference on Business Process Management BPM2015 - http://bpm2015.q-e.at/ at Innsbruck, Austria.

========================
Call for Papers
========================


Visualizations can make the structure and dependencies between elements in processes accessible in order to support users who need to analyze process models and their instances.
However, effectively visualizing processes in a user-friendly way is often a big challenge, especially for complex process models which can consist of hundreds of process components (e.g., process activities, data flows, and resources) and thousands of running process instances in different execution states.

Many challenges remain to be addressed within the broad area of process visualization, human interaction and user led design such as: scalability, human-computer interaction, cognitive aspects, applicability of different approaches, collaboration, process evolution, run-time requirements of process instances and applications, user-engagement etc.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
* Visual Metaphors in Processes
* Visual Design and Aesthetics for Processes
* Visualization of Dynamic Data in Processes
* Change Visualization for Processes
* Interface and Interaction Techniques for Process Visualization
* Visualization Techniques for Collaboration and Distributed Processes
* Visualization of Large-scale Processes
* Cognition and Perception in Process Visualization
* Evaluation and User Studies of Process Visualization
* Evaluation Methods for Human Aspects in PAIS
* Visual Modeling Languages
* Analysis Techniques and Visualization for Processes
* Process Visualization of Large Screens
* Mobile Process Visualization
* Visualization Tools and Systems for Processes
* Visualization Techniques for Processes
* Process Visualization and Sonification
* Virtual World Process Visualization
* Immersive Process Modeling Approaches
* Human Computer Interaction Design Applied to Process Systems
* 3D Process Visualization Approaches
* Human-centric aspects in business process management
* User-centered design for BPM
* User Interface design for Processes

========================
Format of the Workshop
========================

The half day workshop will comprise accepted papers and tool evaluations. Papers should be submitted in advance and will be reviewed by at least three members of the program committee.

This year will also include a new innovation in the programme. Part of the workshop time (depending on the number of prototype submissions) will be set aside for focus group assessments of tools. We will be requesting tool report authors, successful workshop paper authors and panel members attending BPM, to assist in the assessment of demonstration visualization techniques and software. This evaluation process will be a service to attendees, as these heuristic assessments can be written up later as separate papers, or by the workshop chairs as an aggregated workshop outcome. Such evaluations will be an exciting addition to the workshop, as people experienced in Information Visualization, BPM, HCI and related fields, will provide detailed feedback on your prototypes. The evaluation approach is largely in the hands of the tool report writers, but at a minimum, should involve direct interaction with your software and some form of validation via a questionnaire.

All accepted papers will appear in the workshop proceedings published by Springer in the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP) series. There will be a single LNBIP volume dedicated to the proceedings of all BPM workshops. As this volume will appear after the conference, there will be informal proceedings during the workshop. At least one author for each accepted paper should register for the workshop and present the paper.

========================
Important Dates
========================

* Deadline for workshop paper submissions: 29 May 2015
* Notification of Acceptance: 29 June 2015
* Camera-ready version: 20 July 2015
* TAProViz Workshop: 31 August 2015



========================
Paper Submission
========================

Prospective authors are invited to submit papers for presentation in any of the areas listed above.


Three types of submissions are possible:

* (1) full papers (12 pages long) reporting mature research results
* (2) position papers reporting research that may be in preliminary stage that has not yet been evaluated
* (3) tool reports, to be evaluated at the workshop


Position papers and tool reports should be no longer than 6 pages. Tool reports should include a brief evaluation plan as an appendix, for the evaluation session at the workshop on the day.

Papers must be in English and must present original research contributions not concurrently submitted elsewhere. Papers should be submitted in the LNBIP format. The title page must contain a short abstract, a classification of the topics covered, preferably using the list of topics above, and an indication of the submission category (regular paper/position paper/tool report).

All accepted workshop papers will be published by Springer as a post-workshop proceedings volume in the series Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (LNBIP). Hard copies of these proceedings will be shipped to all registered participants approximately four months after the workshops, while preliminary proceedings will be distributed during the workshop.

Submitted papers will be evaluated, in a double blind manner, on the basis of significance, originality, technical quality, and exposition. Papers should clearly establish their research contribution and the relation to the theory and application of process visualization.

========================
Registration
========================
Accepted papers imply that at least one of the authors will register for BPM2015 and present the paper at the TAProViz workshop.

Further workshop information is available from the website: http://www.wst.univie.ac.at/topics/taproviz15/



Hope to see you at TAProViz'15!

Thanks and best regards,

Ross Brown
Simone Kriglstein
Stefanie Rinderle-Ma

TAProViz Organising Committee

Monday, January 12, 2015

Review: Presence and Memory: Immersive Virtual Reality Effects on Cued Recall

#Title#
Presence and Memory: Immersive Virtual Reality Effects on Cued Recall

#Authors#
Jakki Bailey, Jeremy N. Bailenson, Andrea Stevenson Won, June Flora and K. Carrie Armel

#Venue#
Stanford Tech Report - only Preliminary Results

#DOI#
http://vhil.stanford.edu/pubs/2012/bailey-ispr-presence-memory.pdf

#Abstract#
Presence, the psychological experience of “being there,” is an important construct to consider when investigating the impact of mediated experiences on cognition. Though several studies have investigated the influence of presence on the memory of virtual environments (i.e. recalling virtual objects), few have tested how presence impacts memory on subsequent tasks in the physical world. Thirty-three male and female college students were exposed to a pro-environmental message in an immersive virtual environment. After the virtual reality treatment, they completed a memory task in the physical world regarding pro-environmental principles. Results showed a significant negative association between levels of reported presence in the virtual world and the number of correct water conservation examples remembered in the physical world. These findings suggest that media technology that induces presence can influence an individual’s ability to remember information in the physical world. Possible theoretical explanations of how presence may negatively impact cognition are presented.

#Comments#

Here they seek to relate a specific component of VW to memory, viz., presence or subjective levels of being there, with memory recall in cueing experiments.

They use a nVisor SX111 HMD (NVIS, Reston, VA) with a resolution of 2056 x 1024 and a refresh rate of 120 frames per second to perform the work, framerate is very high compared to Oculus, which may improve presence?  Need to keep this in mind.

Experiment context is that the task involved an environmental narrative, so emotional resonance with such a concept could be a factor here as well.  Does it work the same with other more humdrum narratives?

They also look at free recall and cued recall, so the memory tests are of a different type in each case to cover possibly differing memory processes.

Useful presence scale for assessing level of presence: "A five- item scaled was adapted from presence scales used in previous studies (Bailenson and Yee, 2007; Ahn & Bailenson, 2011; Nowak & Biocca, 2003)."

Note they get a NEGATIVE correlation with memory and presence (n=33).  This needs to be considered for my experiments.  It would be interesting to see if a comparison with desktop levels of presence will map to my other results with Unity and Metasonic?!?!?

Negative correlation is potentially explained by:

1. Vivid inputs from VW could drain cognitive capacity to remember items.
2. Arousal - high levels of emotion - limit memory tasks.
3. People who report high levels of presence actually remember things using different processes, and so are actually a different subject group, so could be a confounding factor that needs to be controlled.
4. Only correlational experiment, no details on causation, so needs further work.

An interesting result, bring out many research questions to answer on the relationship of VW elements with cognitive processes.

#ImportantRefs#

Lin, Duh, Parker, Abi-Rached, & Furness, 2002
Mania & Chalmers, 2001
Dinh, Walker, Song, Kobayashi, and Hodges 1999 

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Review: Virtually True: Children’s Acquisition of False Memories in Virtual Reality

#Title#
Virtually True: Children’s Acquisition of False Memories in Virtual Reality

#Authors#
KATHRYN Y. SEGOVIA and JEREMY N. BAILENSON

#Venue#
Journal of Media Psychology, 12:371–393, 2009

#DOI#
DOI: 10.1080/15213260903287267

#Abstract#
Previous work on human memory has shown that prompting participants with false events and self-relevant information via different types of media such as narratives, edited 2-dimensional images, and mental imagery creates false memories. This study tested a new form of media for studying false memory formation: Immersive Virtual Environment Technology (IVET). Using this tool, we examined how memory was affected by viewing dynamic simulations of avatars performing novel actions. In the study, 55 preschool and elementary children were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 memory prompt conditions (idle, mental imagery, IVET simulation of another child, or IVET simulation of self). Each child was questioned 3 different times: once before the memory prompt, once immediately after the memory prompt, and once approximately 5 days after the memory prompt. Results showed that preschool children were equally likely to develop false memories regardless of memory prompt condition. But, for elementary children, the mental imagery and IVET self conditions caused significantly more false memories than the idle condition. Implications regarding the use of digital media in courtroom settings, clinical therapy settings, entertainment, and other applications are discussed.

#Comments#

Interesting, another acronym - Immersive Virtual Environment Technology (IVET).  I don't like it, prefer 3D virtual worlds.  But I guess the use of immersive is pertinent here.

Note here that experiments were performed with children, not adults.  They state that the vulnerability of preschool children to suggestive influences is very high, so may not apply to adults.

They also bring up the source monitoring judgement as an experimental task; viz. the identification of sources of memories, and how it is actually poorly managed on the part of the brain.

They also state that narratives are commonly used to test false memories.  Are these analogous to workflows, and the place of false memories in elicitation?!?!?

Conjecture: Is the imposition of a process a form of false memory imputation over the actuality of the work processes in an enterprise?  Or, for any elicitation process for that matter?  Thus the more real the stimuli, the more likely to get the truth?  Possible research question here.

They note that narrative information previously used in experiments is not that rich.  The media richness theory suggests a greater effect from IVETs.

Interesting passage:

"In another set of studies, college students heard simple action statements and in some conditions either performed or imagined the action as well (Goff & Roediger, 1998). In a second session, participants imagined performing actions (some of which came from the first session and some of which were new) either one, three, or five times. In the third session, participants were asked to identify actions only if they had occurred in the first session and, if identified, to tell whether the action statement had been carried out, imagined, or merely heard. The main finding was that increasing the number of imaginings during the second session caused participants to later remember that they had performed an action during the first session when in fact the participant had not."

Note the influence of imagination over the actual memory of a performed event.  This seems to hold across familiar and non-familiar actions - relevant to knowledge elicitation.  If you get people to imagine badly, they will report badly.

They also note the power of imaging past actions; very close and personal stimuli and feedback interactions in the person's head.  May be part of a feedback loop.

Another key factor here:


"We believe that the manipulation explored by Strange and colleagues (2008) is important and would like to offer a complementary hypothesis to explain the reported effect. We propose that personalized photographs were more powerful stimuli because they fulfilled the personal focus criterion in- volved in media richness. The personal focus involved in the media richness criteria is influential in the memory process because it causes humans to self-reference; people encode more attributes when they are engaged in self-referent processing than other types of processing (Symons & Johnson, 1997). The greater the amount of information encoded the more similar the memory becomes to a memory of a physical world event, and the greater the likelihood that a source monitoring error will occur."

This is the key here to me, not regarding false memories, but regarding actual memories.  Such an idea lends further weight to the fact that elicitation is enhanced by personal recollection, but may be further confounded if the personal recollection has edits introduced.  So, we have a mechanism here for the noise involved in recollection, especially that which is false, not just knocked out due to functional problems, such as random memory lapses.

They note that use of media may provide a low-cognitive organisation environment, compared to abstract representations, such as text.  This may lead, in fact, to more inaccuracy, as errors are amplified by the nature of the immersion involved.

Their summation indicates that children are affected by false narratives, even in a passive viewing, non-interactive manner, with the IVET.  This indicates a predictable effect on people of experiencing false stories in IVETs, and leads to the conclusion that such environments should be used with caution, but that they hold promise in enabling better recall, if the stimuli are accurate.

#ImportantRefs#